Prayers

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.

Death of a Former Member: Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, on 16 June. He retired from the House in 2018, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Earl’s family and friends.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.

Housing: New Developments
 - Question

Baroness Thornhill: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their proposed changes to the planning process will ensure that the public is supportive of new housing developments.

Baroness Thornhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Lord Greenhalgh: We know that the planning system has a poor record of community engagement and can often be adversarial. That is why our reforms have effective engagement at their heart. By ensuring that communities are meaningfully involved in preparing plans and local design codes, they can have real influence over the location and design of development. This will be supported by digital transformation, with new tools to make planning more transparent, accessible and engaging.

Baroness Thornhill: I thank the Minister for what he said, but could he explain how involving the public only every five years when a plan is drawn up, alongside so many sites under the new reforms having automatic permission in principle, will restore trust and confidence in the system? As a former council leader, how does he think this will work in reality years later, when work actually begins?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, it is not just involvement in the local plan that happens every five years but producing the design codes. But, importantly, communities will have a say in detailed aspects of planning applications.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. People, if consulted, often prefer smaller and lower-rise developments. What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to promote such developments and secure public approval of ecological measures to reduce carbon emissions from them?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, the drive for development does need to take into account the need for sustainable development. Planning will take on board a zonal approach, with some of the positives of the existing system, and will divide areas into growth areas, renewal areas and protected areas.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am sure that the Minister will agree that neighbourhood planning has been very successful in involving communities, delivering approximately 18,000 more houses than were contained in local plans. So can he confirm that neighbourhood planning will remain after the Government’s planning reforms are introduced and that they will remain a material consideration when decisions are made?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I do not want to presuppose what will be in our response to the planning White Paper, but I recognise the important contribution that neighbourhood plans provide to delivering homes.

Baroness Redfern: How are the Government intending to ensure that there is full community involvement in planning and a strong focus not just on housing numbers and speed of delivery but on developing sustainable communities, with a much wider remit?

Lord Greenhalgh: My noble friend is right that we should focus on sustainable communities, not just the drive for volume and more housing. It is important to strike a balance between enabling vital development, including building the homes we need more quickly, and continuing to protect and enhance the natural and built environment.

Baroness Prashar: My Lords, the Town and Country Planning Association has raised concerns that bypassing meaningful input from local bodies, councillors and the public, and delivering homes through permitted development rights, undermines public support for new housing. Does the Minister agree that, by continuing to expand the delivery of homes through PDR, the Government are undermining their own stated goal of making the planning process more democratic?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I point out that permitted development rights have enabled us to deliver a net additional 72,000 homes in the last five years and make an important contribution to the planning system. Our planning reforms are all designed to get effective community engagement at the front end of the process.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: The expansion of permitted development rights is taking away the voices of local communities in the planning process and handing them to Whitehall’s appointed boards of developers. Are the Government consulting local government representatives about these changes? If so, what representations have they received?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, at this stage of the planning reform process we have had 44,000 responses and have continued engagement with the Local Government Association and other important stakeholders, and we will be responding to those responses in due course.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, the city of Freiburg is widely recognised as a global first-rank model of urban sustainable life, based on strong and active democracy and citizen participation. Is it not time that councils in this country were given the real powers they need to redress the balance between overpowerful developers and democratic institutions?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we need to recognise the existing frailties of the current planning system, which has not been reformed for over seven decades and has a very poor record on public engagement. Data shows that less than 1% engage on local planning consultations and only 3% engage on applications. That is something that we intend to improve with the reforms that we have outlined in the White Paper.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, there is a real risk that the proposed changes to the planning process could mean that fewer accessible homes are built for older and disabled people. Research from the housing association Habinteg reveals that more than half of all local plans make no requirements for new homes to meet any accessible housing standard. Fewer  accessible houses are being planned now compared with 2019. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to ensure that more homes are built to accessible and adaptable standards?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we continue to set standards around accessibility and recognise that it plays an important part in getting the right number of new homes. We have set out an approach that allows more public engagement, so that local communities can shape the places that they live in.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, do the Government recognise the importance of place-making when it comes to building homes; that we are making communities for people to live in, not just houses; and that, in particular, living in the places we make should not be dependent on using a motor car?

Lord Greenhalgh: My noble friend is right that it is important not just to have volume as the driver but to think about the quality of the housing. Indeed, our reforms enable there to be model design codes. We have a draft national model design code that shows how to engage the community in creating places that reflect local views and allow people to shape the places they live in.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, what local people object to is large numbers of houses being dumped in their back yard to fulfil the Government’s flawed housing targets, because they know that they are based on out-of-date 2014 assumptions and dodgy algorithms that focus housing in areas where houses are least affordable. The Minister has already had a biffing on this from his Home Counties colleagues. Will the Government revisit the housing target calculation and will the Minister comment on why annual planning permissions for houses have more than doubled in the last 10 years, yet house prices have not come down and, indeed, houses have not been built?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we have already looked at the approach to assessing local housing need to ensure that we see greater focus on the renewal of our cities and towns rather than urban sprawl. So we have already taken that point on board.

Lord Young of Cookham: Does my noble friend agree that the public would be more supportive of the proposals to build the hundreds of thousands of new homes that the country needs if more of these homes were clearly being targeted at families on average incomes, with children, already living in the area and at key workers such as nurses and teachers, with perhaps less emphasis on unaffordable homes for newcomers?

Lord Greenhalgh: My noble friend is absolutely right that we need homes of all types and tenures. Our reforms will give communities a greater voice from the start of the planning process. The reforms will make planning more straightforward and accessible and make it easier for people to influence local plans and have a say on locations, standards and types of development.  The Government are of course committed to home ownership; the First Homes scheme allows a discount of up to 30% of full market value and, of course, there is the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme that will allow for the decent family homes that my noble friend sees as so critical.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, so we will move the next Question.

Covid-19: Vaccine Production
 - Question

Baroness Sheehan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in discussions with members of the World Trade Organization to facilitate increased production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, the UK is proud to be playing a global leading role in the development and distribution of coronavirus vaccines. What is now needed most is the scaling up of existing and new vaccine production to achieve equitable, affordable access for all. We continue to engage actively and constructively at the WTO regarding increasing the production and supply of Covid-19 vaccines.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, the temporary TRIPS waiver proposed by South Africa and India to the WTO is supported by the US and France, as well as the leaders of the COVAX initiative—Gavi and the WHO—which has proven entire-chain processes that deliver to the last mile. Does the Minister agree that the counter-proposal by the European Commission to encourage voluntary action and reliance on compulsory licences is a red herring, because both options already exist? Millions of people have died while we rely on the good will of big pharma, which has yet again failed the humanity test.

Lord Callanan: I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We are working with industry, the COVAX Manufacturing Task Force and the ACT-A Vaccine Manufacturing Working Group to champion other routes to scale up capacity and engage on forward supply chain planning in order to accelerate and progress vaccination programmes across the world. We think that is the best way forward.

Baroness Bryan of Partick: Ensuring accessible and affordable Covid-19 vaccines across the globe is a human rights duty that requires international co-operation. Can the Minister give details of government support for the WHO Technology Access Pool, and have the Government ensured that the intellectual property in respect of vaccines developed with the support of public funding has been deposited with C-TAP, in order to scale up production in countries that have untapped capacity?

Lord Callanan: It is not simply a question of scaling up untapped capacity; producing these vaccines is complicated and technically challenging, and we need the support of big pharma to do it. There are few facilities across the world that can produce them properly and we have seen, even in the West, how some batches have gone wrong because of manufacturing problems. However, we are proud to be working with the COVAX initiative. We have helped to raise more than £1 billion through match funding other donors. Combined with our aid, that is helping to distribute 1.8 billion doses across the world.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, AstraZeneca has been generous in providing vaccines to the world at cost. Do other companies oppose the principle of giving up their intellectual property rights in respect of these vaccines? As there is a humanitarian justification in their allowing the world to so benefit, would there be any merit in naming and shaming such big pharma companies?

Lord Callanan: It remains the case that we have not seen any convincing evidence that intellectual property is a limiting factor in the production and/or supply of Covid vaccines or other technologies. As the noble Lord points out, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is being made available at cost.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government, through my noble friend, on the success of the UK vaccine rollout and the involvement with AstraZeneca, whose vaccine is widely being offered on a no-profit basis, as has been said. While I hope for our continuing commitment in assisting with worldwide protection, can my noble friend confirm that, in any discussions on possible intellectual property waivers, he will ensure that standards of production and vaccine quality will not be prejudiced at all?

Lord Callanan: I thank my noble friend for his comments and he makes a very good point, the same point that I made earlier. Production of these vaccines is technically complicated, particularly the mRNA vaccines. There are not really any other production facilities outside the West in the property of big pharmaceutical companies that are able to produce them. It is not a question of simply waiving the IP rights and allowing anybody to produce them.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, paragraph 10 of the G7 communiqué refers to 700 million doses being made available from domestic productions, over half of which have gone to other G7 countries. Uganda, for example, is paying three times as much as the EU and the UK for the AstraZeneca vaccine because of the limit and because it is not using the WHO Technology Access Pool. Will the Government think again and open up access to technology and know-how in order to allow other countries to increase domestic production, so that they pay the same to AstraZeneca as the UK is paying?

Lord Callanan: I am not sure that the noble Lord’s figures are correct. I will certainly write to him if that is not the case, but my understanding is that the vaccines are being distributed at cost. AstraZeneca already has supply agreements—with the Serum Institute of India, for example, to produce 1 billion doses. We will donate 100 million surplus coronavirus vaccine doses within the next year. We are committed to helping the third world to access the vaccines it needs.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, as the Minister said, the process of manufacturing vaccines is complex and difficult, as we saw with Johnson & Johnson in America, for example. The fastest and best way to set up large-scale vaccine manufacturing in developing countries is for the rights holders to invest. Will our Government work with IP holders such as AstraZeneca to set up across the world? We do not need to deprive them of their rights. The Oxford/AstraZeneca group intends its vaccine to be for the world; will our Government help it to deliver that?

Lord Callanan: My noble friend is correct and speaks with great authority on this subject, but the best way forward is voluntary licensing and technology transfer partnerships. They are making a real and positive impact on vaccine delivery, and the UK Government will of course do all we can to facilitate this process.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, as president of the CBI, I chaired the B7, which fed into the G7. The B7 was attended by Dr Ngozi, the new director-general of the WTO. There was unanimous agreement on the free flow of trade for the manufacture and distribution of vaccines. Do the Government agree that there needs to be unhindered trade for vaccine manufacture and distribution? The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for example, contains 280 different components, manufactured in 86 different sites across 19 countries. Does the Minister also agree that, although it is good that the UK and US have agreed to supply 600 million surplus doses of vaccines around the world, what is actually needed is for the wealthiest countries in the world to urgently finance and help enable the manufacture and distribution of 11 billion doses, including at the Serum Institute of India, which the Minister just mentioned?

Lord Callanan: There was a lot in those questions. The best way to facilitate this is through the COVAX initiative. The UK is proud to be one of its largest funders. We have helped to raise almost $1 billion for that initiative, which is helping to supply vaccines to 92 developing countries across the world.

Lord Grantchester: The G7 leaders’ communiqué notes
“the positive impact that voluntary licensing and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms have already made to increasing global supply.”
But untransparent exclusive bilateral voluntary licences from pharmaceutical companies have led to the grossly insufficient quantities of Covid-19 vaccines that we see today. I return to the line of questioning of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and the noble Lord,  Lord Purvis: will the UK Government not continue to miss the point but instead use their initiative and push pharmaceutical companies to share intellectual property and tech through the World Health Organization’s Covid-19 Technology Access Pool?

Lord Callanan: My Lords, the intellectual property for the AstraZeneca vaccine, as is known, is actually owned by the University of Oxford. We will of course work with the companies and everyone possible to make sure that the third world is vaccinated, because that is in our interests. That is why we have contributed so much to the COVAX initiative.

Baroness Northover: Does the Minister agree that it was ODA funding to the Jenner Institute, for the Ebola crisis, that helped to underpin what it was later able to do in this pandemic? Has any new money been allocated by the UK to COVAX since the ODA cut last year?

Lord Callanan: We have donated £548 million to the COVAX initiative, which has been match funded to a total of $1 billion.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, given the government statement at the TRIPS council meeting on 9 June that suggested that
“vaccines for new pandemics will simply not be developed”
if there is action on intellectual property, what role does the Minister consider the £100 billion in taxpayer subsidies played in Covid-19 vaccine development? Will he confirm that, apart from the role of big pharma, to which he has referred, 97% of the costs of developing the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine were covered by public funds?

Lord Callanan: A strong IP system is crucial in supporting the rapid development of new vaccines, but the noble Lord is right: we contributed extensive taxpayer funds to supporting it.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, ramping up production of vaccines is key in the medium and long term but, in the short term, rich countries such as ours have been fortunate enough to be able to buy sufficient vaccines to vaccinate our population many times over. The 100 million doses the UK has now committed is a welcome first step, but 70 million will not be distributed until next year. Given that we will have fully vaccinated our adult population by the end of the summer, can my noble friend look again at the timing of our contribution?

Lord Callanan: We will certainly look at it, as my noble friend suggests, but the Prime Minister has announced that the UK will share 100 million doses within the next year, of which 30 million will be delivered by the end of 2021. We currently do not have any surplus vaccines and the health of the UK public remains our first priority. But I agree with my noble friend that this virus will not truly be beaten until it is defeated everywhere. We have been committed to  affordable access to vaccines for all since the start of the pandemic, and this announcement is another tangible demonstration of that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.

Covid-19: Care Homes
 - Question

Lord Scriven: To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) on what date, and (2) in which policy document, testing for COVID-19 was offered as a matter of policy to those leaving hospitals and going to care homes.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the Covid-19 hospital discharge service requirements were published on 19 March 2020. They stipulated that patients’ Covid-19 test results, negative or positive, should be included in their discharge documents. On 15 April, we built on this with the adult social care action plan, including a policy of testing all patients prior to discharge to a care home. I remind noble Lords that the WHO acknowledged the threat of asymptomatic transmission on 9 July 2020.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, last week the Secretary of State said that a policy of testing patients going to care homes was brought in
“as soon as we had those tests available”.
That was in mid-April 2020, and more than 500,000 tests were carried out to mid-April 2020. Only 25,000 would have been required to test all patients being discharged to care homes. Can the Minister explain these figures and the contradiction in the Secretary of State’s statement that they highlight?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord’s figures. As of 14 March 2020, the seven-day rolling average showed that there were 51,741 discharges a day from hospital, of which 1,123 were from hospitals specifically to care homes. That was at a moment when our testing capacity was 3,000 a day. A month later, on 15 April, the rolling average was 22,000, of which 548 were discharges from hospitals specifically to care homes. By that date, the testing capacity was 38,766.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, we need granular details such as dates and decision-making processes not to play the blame game but because we need to understand precisely how Covid got into care homes. In that context, can the Minister tell us when and why the policy decision was made to make vaccines mandatory for care home staff, going against the Government’s stated opposition to jabs for jobs and against the crucial ethical principle of medical consent? Does the Minister understand that for care home workers, vaccinated and non-vaccinated, this looks  like decisively shifting the blame from official culpability for the scandal of how Covid got into homes on to hard-pressed front-line workers?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, we are in the middle of a consultation on mandatory vaccinations for care home staff. One thing I would remind the noble Baroness of is that the vast majority of infections in care homes last year were through staff, not through discharge.

Lord Balfe: I think the question the public want the answer to is why so many people died in care homes. Will there be an inquiry which will try to get to the bottom of that simple fact?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, PHE has published a report on that. It calculates that around 1.6% of the deaths in care homes were directly attributable to discharge. That number is very sad, but it is a relatively low proportion. This will, of course, be a subject covered in the government inquiry that the Prime Minister has already announced.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I feel sure that the Minister will agree that it was extraordinary that, when relatives were prevented from visiting their loved ones in residential care, and many of the residents could not understand why they had been abandoned, at that very time patients were being admitted from hospital without having been tested for this virus.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I completely sympathise with the point on those in care homes receiving a very tough challenge when they have been prevented from seeing loved ones. We have had to take extremely severe infection control measures, many of which are still in place for the reasons that have been discussed in this Chamber before. But I challenge the noble Lord’s point on testing. We brought in testing when asymptomatic infection was recognised and when the capacity was available.

Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State continues to justify himself by quoting the seriously underestimated PHE January to October 2020 data assessment on hospital discharges to care homes of 286 Covid deaths? The National Care Forum of care providers has repeatedly made clear how fundamentally flawed and incredibly partial that data is. Only limited numbers of symptomatic patients in hospitals and care homes were tested, and cases not tested before death are not included. Even the chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has said that relying on this for a full picture of the situation is a stretch of the imagination. We owe it to the people who have died, their relatives and care home providers to have full, accurate and independent information. How is the Minister going to ensure that it is urgently provided, so that we can genuinely learn from what happened?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns, but the PHE report is extremely thorough. I am not aware of it being revised, but if it is, I would be glad to share that information with the noble Baroness.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, respected health commentators and statisticians say that excess deaths—that is, deaths above the expected number—is a more accurate way of looking at the scale of deaths in care homes due to Covid. Care home residents make up just 0.7% of the population. In the first wave of the pandemic, deaths in care homes accounted for 44% of all excess deaths for that period in England and Wales. What does the Minister think this says about the effectiveness of the so-called protective ring thrown around care homes and what lessons have been learned?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, we were never in any doubt from the very beginning that the virus presented a huge threat to care homes. They are where the elderly and the vulnerable are housed, in conditions where it is extremely difficult to enforce infection control and where there is a large amount of intimacy between residents and staff. We knew from the experience of other countries that care homes were very likely to be an area where infection and severe illness, and potentially death, would be highly prevalent. There is no doubt that care homes suffered the brunt of this virus, and for that matter I am extremely sad indeed. Noble Lords should realise that we put every measure in place that we humanly could have done. We gave a huge amount of resources, including £2.8 billion via the NHS specifically to support enhanced discharge processes and the implementation of the discharge to assess model.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for adding to the burden that he bears in answering this question. I know he cares deeply about this situation. However, it is important for lessons to be learned, so that we have no similar experience in future. The letter sent by the NHS to care homes on 15 April 2020 states:
“Where a test result is still awaited, the patient will be discharged … pending the result ... This new testing requirement must not hold up a timely discharge”.
I do not believe any of this was a deliberate attempt to infect care homes, but I do believe that care homes need infection control and that there was a lack of follow-up for patients who were discharged positive.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the question, but its assumption is, I am afraid, quite wrong. Before April 2020, there was very little evidence and no scientific consensus whatever that asymptomatic transmission posed any risk. For example, the World Health Organization said on 2 April:
“to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.”
My noble friend may remember that differently. They were very difficult times, and we made decisions on very limited information. We made the best decisions we could have done under the circumstances.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, as late as March last year there was clear evidence coming from Italy about people dying in nursing and care homes there. Surely if we had been half-awake we would have realised that what was happening in Italy was a solemn warning to us, and we should have acted accordingly. Why did we not do so?

Lord Bethell: I saw the images the noble Lord refers to and was shocked and moved by them. That is why we moved massively, including, in March, announcing £594 million in order to support care homes, and massively supporting them through the NHS. We did an enormous amount from the beginning. The effects on care homes have been profound and are extremely sad, but I am afraid to say that this presumption that we either did not enough or took the wrong advice is not supported by the facts.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, let us focus on what government can do now. My concern is that the Government are overcompensating for the very high early death rate in care homes, for whatever reason, by imposing wildly disproportionate controls over double-jabbed, tested visitors. For example, they have to wear PPE and social distance, as we know, and there is no hugging—thus wrecking the final months for these people in care homes. I ask again: will our excellent Minister—I mean that; he is an excellent Minister—put to the Prime Minister the risks and benefits of scrapping these controls?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am extremely sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s point and conscious of her specific point that we could be in danger of over- reaching or in some way emotionally overcompensating for perceived mistakes in the past. We are conscious of that possibility, but I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that it is not the case. The decisions we have made on infection control and on visiting in care homes are tough—they are hard—but in recent weeks there have been outbreaks in care homes in London and Bolton in which vaccinated residents have caught the disease and had serious symptoms. That is something we are extremely wary of. When the vaccination has reached a higher proportion of the population and R is below 1, we will be in a position to change these policies. We will do so at pace and as quickly as we reasonably can, but until that moment arrives we have to take these tough decisions.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Standards in Public Life Report
 - Question

Lord Tyler: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life Standards Matter 2: Committee Findings, published on 14 June.

Lord True: My Lords, we are very grateful for the work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and his committee. It has published an interim report, and the Government will respond formally to its final recommendations when they are published in the autumn. However, in the meantime we will carefully consider its interim findings, along with those of the independent review of supply chain finance, which is due to report to the Prime Minister by the end of June.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, the committee and its seven principles of public life are the moral compass for politics and government. This report shows how far the Johnson Administration are failing to meet these standards. Even Dominic Cummings now seems to agree with this. The Ministerial Code, ministerial interests, business and public appointments and lobbying rules are all identified in this report as needing “significant reform”. Given that the public perception of excessive ministerial pressure for control, corruption and conformity is hugely damaging to our democracy, will the Minister now give the House a firm undertaking that the report’s recommendations will be acted on as a matter of extreme urgency?

Lord True: My Lords, I have already indicated to the House that the Government will study very carefully the interim findings of this report. I underline what I say every time I come to this Dispatch Box: I, and indeed the whole Government, attach the highest importance to high standards of probity in public life.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern about the precedent created by a former special adviser making money by selectively leaking, on a subscription website, inside information obtained while he was employed by the Government and trusted by colleagues? How can good government continue if this kind of outrageous behaviour is to be tolerated?

Lord True: My Lords, I think that many will pay attention to my noble friend’s words, as ever. I will not comment on individuals but, as we set out last week, we expect all current and former advisers to act in full accordance with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. This includes full accordance with its ACOBA provisions. Both the Cabinet Office and ACOBA are able to offer advice to current and former employees to help fulfil these requirements.

Baroness Quin: My Lords, with regard to the Ministerial Code, can the Minister assure us that in future there will be no question of the Prime Minister expressing his full confidence in a Minister at the beginning of an investigation, thereby prejudicing and undermining the process in advance, as happened with the Home Secretary?

Lord True: My Lords, again, I will not comment on individuals. We have discussed this before, and I maintain the view that the Prime Minister’s constitutional role means that he or she has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive and the implementation of the Ministerial Code. The committee’s interim report has made some observations on the code, and obviously we will consider those carefully.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, do the Government accept the committee’s recommendation that a finding of a breach of the Ministerial Code by the independent adviser should be final? If not, should not the Prime Minister’s role in reviewing his findings be quasi-judicial, as in other areas where Ministers are required to make judgments, necessitating his personal, impartial reconsideration of the case and the giving in writing of his reasons for reversing the decision?

Lord True: My Lords, again, the Ministerial Code is subject to transparency. As the noble Lord acknowledges, it is under the responsibility of the Prime Minister. The appointment of a new independent adviser on Ministers’ interests—the noble Lord, Lord Geidt —has been widely welcomed, I am sure, and his recommendations and observations will be taken seriously.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, part of the reason for this review of the various codes and standards is the Prime Minister thinking that rules are for other people and not for him. We know he likes to be first, but given that he is the first Prime Minister to ignore a finding of bullying against a Minister and do nothing, and the first Prime Minister to ignore the advice of HOLAC and appoint to your Lordships’ House somebody who it rejected as a Conservative Party donor, it feels more like a race to the bottom than a race to high standards, which we would all much prefer to see.
Specifically on the interim report we have in front us, the recommendation in the case where a Minister is in breach of the Ministerial Code is that there should not be a binary choice between resignation or sacking and remaining in office but a “range of sanctions” available to reflect the severity of any such breach. Would that not be of assistance to this Prime Minister, meaning he would be less likely to intervene in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, outlined?

Lord True: My Lords, that is a recommendation from the interim report. The question of graduated sanctions obviously reflects the position of successive Governments, to some degree. That was set out in the recent letter from the Prime Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Evans. I will not follow an ad hominem attack on the current Prime Minister. I believe we should recognise collectively in this country that standards in public life are very high. We should maintain and always examine how we can improve transparency and performance.

Lord Herbert of South Downs: My Lords, when considering the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, will my noble friend take care to ensure that there are not unintended consequences from the report’s recommendations that public appointments should be subjected to further regulation? After all, the significance of Dame Kate Bingham’s appointment to chair the Vaccine Taskforce was not just that it was clearly a triumph and transformed our country’s ability to fight the virus but that it was comprehensively attacked before it was clear that it was in fact a very good appointment. Was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not right in saying in his speech on Tuesday that we should not allow incidents to allow “a Berlin Wall” to be
“rebuilt between the permanent Civil Service and others who can help us to enhance the performance of government”?

Lord True: My noble friend gives good and wise advice to the House. Again, I am not going to comment on individual cases, particularly where there is challenge to an appointment, though I think we  would all agree that the public service of the person mentioned has been exemplary. We should be cautious and we need to look carefully at recommendations, but we should be careful not to lose some degree of flexibility, with appropriate examination, transparency and accountability. Indeed, successive Governments have used common-law powers to directly appoint individuals in advisory capacities.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, this excellent report reaffirms the importance of the seven principles of public life, which include integrity and honesty. Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister ignoring the recommendation of his independent adviser regarding the Home Secretary’s bullying and the insider lobbying by David Cameron meet up to these seven principles? Will he respect the role of this House in asking questions of the Government and holding them to account by having some courage and commenting on these individual cases?

Lord True: My Lords, some cases are sub judice, including one referred to earlier, while the case of Mr Cameron is subject to the current investigation—the Boardman review—so I do not take the noble Lord’s strictures about not being prepared to comment on individual cases. Where I agree with him and other noble Lords is that we need openness and accountability. At the end of the day, advisers advise and Ministers decide.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, all supplementary Question have been asked.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement of Recess Dates

Lord Ashton of Hyde: My Lords, I thought this might be a convenient point for me to make a short statement about recess dates. A note containing the dates that I am about to announce will shortly be made available in the Royal Gallery. I should stress, as is always the case, that these dates are subject to the progress of business.
As previously announced, we will rise for the summer at the end of business on Thursday 22 July and return on Monday 6 September. We will then rise for the Conference Recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 September and return on Monday 11 October. We will take our usual autumn long weekend, rising at the end of business on Wednesday 10 November and returning on Monday 15 November. We will rise for Christmas at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 December and return on Tuesday 4 January.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for that advance notice. It is very welcome and helpful for the House.

Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]
 - First Reading

A Bill to make provision for a convention to consider the constitution of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
The Bill was introduced by Lord Purvis of Tweed, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Hereditary Peers By-election
 - Announcement

The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result of the Conservative by-election to elect three hereditary Peers in place of the Earl of Selborne, Lord Denham and Lord Selsdon. Thirty-six Lords submitted valid ballots. A notice detailing the results is in the Printed Paper Office and online. The successful candidates were Lord Sandhurst, the Earl of Leicester and Lord Altrincham.
The Clerk of the Parliaments also announced the result of the whole-House by-election to elect a hereditary Peer in place of the Countess of Mar. Three hundred and seventeen Lords submitted valid ballots. A notice detailing the results is in the Printed Paper Office and online. The successful candidate was Lord Londesborough.
Sitting suspended.

Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
 - Motions to Approve

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations and Orders laid before the House on 21 and 28 April and 12 and 13 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8, 10 and 15 June.
Motions agreed.

Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Lord True: Moved by Lord True
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.
Motion agreed.

G7 and NATO Summits
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 16 June.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the G7 summit I chaired in Carbis Bay and the NATO summit in Brussels.
Let me first thank the people of Cornwall, Carbis Bay and St Ives for welcoming the representatives of the world’s most powerful democracies to their home, an enchanting setting for the first gathering of G7 leaders in two years, the first since the pandemic began, and President Biden’s first overseas visit since taking office. Our aim was to demonstrate how the world’s democracies are ready and able to address the world’s toughest problems, offering solutions and backing them up with concrete action.
The G7 will combine our strengths and expertise to defeat Covid, minimise the risk of another pandemic, and build back better, fairer and greener for the benefit of all. Alongside our partners, the G7 is now engaged in the biggest and fastest vaccination programme in history, which is designed to protect the whole world by the end of next year. My fellow leaders agreed to supply developing countries with another billion doses—either directly or through other channels—of which 100 million will come from the UK.
The world’s most popular vaccine was developed here, and the express purpose of the deal between the British Government, Oxford University and AstraZeneca was to create an inoculation that would be easy to store, quick to distribute and available at cost price, or zero profit, in order to protect as many people as possible. The results are becoming clearer every day: over 500 million Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines have been administered in 168 countries so far, accounting for 96% of the doses distributed to developing nations by COVAX, the global alliance that the UK helped to establish. With every passing hour, people are being protected across the world, and lives saved, by the formidable expertise that the UK was able to assemble.
But all the efforts of this country and many others, no matter how generous and far-sighted, would be futile in the face of another lethal virus that might escape our efforts, so the G7 has agreed to support a Global Pandemic Radar to spot new pathogens before they begin to spread, allowing immediate containment. In case a new virus gets through anyway, our scientists  will embark on a mission to develop the ability to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in just 100 days, compared with the 300 required for Covid.
Even as we persevere against this virus, my fellow leaders share my determination to look beyond today’s crisis and build back better, greener and fairer. If we can learn anything from this tragedy, we have at least been given a chance to break with the past, do things better and do them differently. This time, as our economies rebound, we must avoid the mistakes we made after the financial crash of 2008 and ensure that everyone benefits from the recovery. The surest way to our future prosperity is to design fair and open rules and standards for the new frontiers of the global economy, so the G7 will devise a fairer tax system for global corporations, reversing the race to the bottom, and will strive to ensure that new technology serves as a force for prosperity and hope, strengthening freedom and openness.
My fellow leaders will act as one against an increasing injustice—the denial of an education to millions of girls across the world—by working to get another 40 million girls into school by 2025. I am happy to say that the G7 agreed to provide more than half of the $5 billion sought by the Global Partnership for Education to transform the prospects of millions of children in developing countries, and £430 million will come from the UK.
Our duty to future generations compels us to protect our planet from catastrophic climate change. Every country in the G7 has promised to achieve net zero by 2050, wiping out our contribution to global warming from that date onwards. To achieve that target, we will halve our carbon emissions by 2030 compared with 2010 levels. The G7 resolved to end any government support for unabated coal-fired power generation overseas, and to increase and improve climate finance between now and 2025. We will consecrate 30% of our land and sea to nature, protecting vast areas in all their abundance and diversity of life, giving millions of species the chance to recover from the ravages of recent decades.
It is precisely because safeguarding our planet requires global action that the G7 will offer developing countries a new partnership, the Build Back Better World, to help to construct new, clean and green infrastructure in a way that is transparent and environmentally responsible. There is no contradiction between averting climate change and creating highly skilled and well-paid jobs, both in our country and around the world; we can and will achieve both by means of a green industrial revolution at home and green infrastructure abroad.
I was honoured to welcome our friends the leaders of India, South Korea, Australia and South Africa as guests in Carbis Bay—virtually, of course, in the case of the Prime Minister of India. On Monday, Scott Morrison and I were delighted to reach a free trade agreement between the UK and Australia, creating fantastic opportunities for both our countries, eliminating tariffs on all British exports—whether Scotch whisky or cars from the Midlands—and making it easier for young British people to live and work in Australia. We have also included protections for British farmers over the next 15 years and unprecedented protections and provisions for animal welfare. This House will, of course, be able to scrutinise the agreement once the texts are finalised.
This is exactly how global Britain will help to generate jobs and opportunities at home and level up our whole United Kingdom. Our agreement with Australia is a vital step towards the even greater prize of the UK joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a $9 trillion free trade area embracing the fastest growing economies of the world.
Together with the G7, the countries represented at Carbis Bay comprise a “Democratic XI”—free nations living on five continents, spanning different faiths and cultures, but united by a shared belief in liberty, democracy and human rights. Those ideals were encapsulated in the Atlantic charter agreed by Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt in 1941, when Britain was the only surviving democracy in Europe and the very existence of our freedom was in peril. The courage and valour of millions of people ensured that our ideals survived and flourished, and 80 years on, President Biden and I met within sight of HMS “Prince of Wales”, the Royal Navy’s newest aircraft carrier and the linear successor of the battleship on which the original charter was devised; and we agreed a new Atlantic charter, encompassing the full breadth of British and American co-operation in science and technology, trade and global security.
The surest guarantee of our security is NATO, which protects a billion people in 30 countries, and the summit in Brussels on Monday agreed the wholesale modernisation of the alliance to meet new dangers, including in space and cyberspace, reflecting the priorities of our own integrated review of foreign and defence policy.
Britain has the biggest defence budget in Europe, comfortably exceeding the NATO target of 2% of national income. We have committed our nuclear deterrent and our cyber capabilities to the alliance, and we contribute more troops than any other country to NATO’s deployment to protect Poland and the Baltic states. We do more for the security of our continent than any other European power, showing that we mean it when we say that an attack on any NATO ally shall be considered an attack on all—a pledge that has kept the peace for over 70 years, and which President Biden reaffirmed on behalf of the United States.
Together, these two summits showed the enduring strength of the Atlantic alliance and the bonds we treasure with kindred democracies across the globe. They have provided the best possible foundation for COP 26 in Glasgow in November, when the UK will bring the whole world together in a common cause. They demonstrated how global Britain creates jobs at home, while striving in unison with our friends for a greener, safer and fairer world. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, had we heard the Prime Minister make his Statement in the other place, we would have heard the great joy with which he did so and how wonderful he thought the summit was, but we need to reflect on this. The Prime Minister hosted his first summit as the country basked in some much-needed sunshine and the England team delighted us all with their first group-stage win. The BBC reported that the US President raised Northern   Ireland in a side meeting, and finance Ministers discussed global tax arrangements. That is not about 2021; the same issues were raised back at the G8, as it was then, in 1998, but the similarities end there. The differences between the Carbis Bay and Birmingham summits are stark, not just because it is now the G7 meeting.
The hope that we would see agreement on meaningful, concrete plans to tackle the biggest global challenges disappeared as the Prime Minister’s strained relationships with world leaders took centre stage. Not for the first time, the Government overpromised and underdelivered. There is no global vaccination plan and no action agreed on the climate crisis. At every step, Boris Johnson’s broken promises have cost us friends—but they also cost us our influence.
Bringing the pandemic to an end must be the priority. That means an effective, worldwide vaccination programme. While the virus circulates anywhere it is a threat to us all everywhere, so we welcomed and were optimistic about the Prime Minister’s promise to vaccinate the entire world, as he said, by the end of 2022—only to yet again be disappointed as that turned out to be unsubstantiated rhetoric, with no clear plan to deliver it. There is no funding formula, no operational strategy and no information on where the 11 billion doses of the vaccine would come from. We should have seen an immediate increase in global support for health services in developing countries for any plans to be truly effective.
The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, Emily Thornberry, has written to the Prime Minister on those issues. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has had an opportunity to see that letter to the Prime Minister and that he has read it. The 10-point plan my right honourable friend outlined addresses the fundamental problems about how we can produce the volume of vaccines needed, alongside making preparations for the infrastructure to deliver it. It would ensure we were better prepared for any future pandemic. Yes, it is expensive, but the human, social and economic costs of not doing so are far greater.
Ahead of COP 26, the G7 could have set the groundwork for an ambitious green recovery, leading global support across the world to tackle the climate crisis and finding common ground on climate finance. Again, the Prime Minister fell short: nothing was agreed on national determined contributions and there was nothing to support mitigation and adaptation in the world’s poorest countries. The complete failure of the green homes grant here at home and the impact of aid cuts on climate projects undermine our climate credibility and leave us recklessly out of step with our allies in the G7.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be aware that I have repeatedly asked when, or indeed if, there will be a vote in Parliament on aid cuts. I have had no success, even though this is about the Government breaking their own legislation. This time I will be more specific about the effects of those cuts, because the Prime Minister’s Statement, made yesterday, refers to girls’ education. He clearly recognises the importance of the issue. Given that, and following the cut in the aid budget, will the Government now publish the full  details of the cuts expected for such girls’ education programmes? This is just in the interests of transparency, so we know the exact impact they will have.
While Northern Ireland may have been missing from the communiqué and the Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament, it was not missing from the meetings. Let us be clear: the protocol was not imposed on us but negotiated by this Government. Mr Johnson’s claim to
“do whatever it takes to protect the … integrity of the UK”
is meaningless unless the Government step up to find serious solutions to protect the precious Good Friday agreement. In refusing to do that, the Government are not only shirking their responsibility but damaging our reputation with our strongest allies. We have repeatedly suggested that a veterinary agreement which recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland would remove the need for almost all the checks. Ministers must now show some leadership.
President Biden’s proposal for the global minimum corporation tax is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stop tax avoidance and the undercutting of UK businesses which pay their fair share. This could provide us with billions of pounds in extra tax revenue, yet the Government have spent the last few weeks watering down proposals which could have put an extra £131 million a week into our NHS and other services for the public’s benefit. Can the noble Baroness tell the House why the Government stood in the way of this proposal?
Although Northern Ireland was not mentioned, the Australian trade deal was. We obviously want to see good trade deals, but we also need to see the details and not just the Government patting themselves on the back. I seek two points of clarification on that trade deal. First, there seems to be no mention in the Government’s agreement in principle of environmental or animal welfare standards. The noble Baroness will understand why it is so important to the farming community to ensure that our high production standards are not undermined. Can she provide any assurances on this? Secondly, can she also guarantee that, prior to ratification, Parliament will have full ratification well in advance and a clear and accurate impact assessment?
On a more optimistic note, the NATO summit in Brussels took some welcome steps towards future security in Europe and the north Atlantic. This underlines exactly why the alliance is so important to us. A collective understanding of new security threats, a recommitment to Article 5 deterrence and an emphasis on climate are each integral to global security and stability. We are also pleased that the leaders recognise the challenges that Beijing poses to global security and stability, so can the noble Baroness now detail and provide more information on what strategic actions NATO will agree in relation to China?
In a world of democracy under pressure, and as the US leads allies in facing the challenges posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, the UK’s military leadership in Europe is more important than ever. Having cut the British Army by a further 10,000, however, we are left not only unable to provide regional leadership but out of step with our allies. Again, the UK Government were unable to provide the necessary leadership or direction that we should be in a position to do. With  that in mind, does the noble Baroness regret that the Government have broken their election pledge and are now cutting our Armed Forces by 10,000?
In conclusion, it has been 23 years since the Birmingham G8. International co-operation remains our most effective tool for global progress but the Government have to be ambitious, and that is what was really lacking from this summit. We could have enormous influence on the world stage, but that is a choice. We can do that only if we have the leadership to turn our values into action.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I suspect that, for many people, the sight of the G7 leaders going about their business in a professional and businesslike manner in Cornwall was a great relief after the chaos of the Trump years. The 25-page long White House communiqué, which covers most of the world’s most pressing problems is, at first sight, extremely impressive. Any lingering concerns are not so much to do with the institution—to coin a phrase, “the G7 is back”—but over whether the specific pledges made are substantial enough to meet the challenges the communiqué identifies.
Before coming to the G7, the Prime Minister made great play in his Statement of signing the New Atlantic Charter with President Biden. As noble Lords will be aware, the first Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, led to the formation of the United Nations. Could the noble Baroness inform the House of any single, specific initiative—large or small—she believes or hopes will flow from the new charter? If she is unable to do so, could she explain why the charter should be seen as anything other than a mere PR stunt?
On the summit itself, the Government very sensibly chose to steer their deliberations by commissioning the noble Lord, Lord Stern of Brentford, to set out the scale of ambition they should adopt. His report, G7 Leadership for Sustainable, Resilient and Inclusive Economic Recovery and Growth, sets out a definitive agenda for action on all the key issues the summit addressed. The communiqué simply thanks the noble Lord, Lord Stern, for his efforts, but sadly fails to rise to the challenges he sets. Take just three examples.
First, on Covid vaccines, the noble Lord points to the urgent need to close the £20 billion funding gap for COVAX. The summit committed to only a small fraction of that. Will the UK Government not only redouble their commitment to make vaccines available to those in the rest of the world who need them most and can afford them least, but commit to diverting surplus vaccines in the UK, and do so in the speediest possible fashion?
Secondly, on climate change the noble Lord, Lord Stern, makes the case for a doubling of climate finance and for a commitment to go beyond the $100 billion target to help developing countries to decarbonise. Such a commitment is lacking in the communiqué. Does the noble Baroness accept that, by cutting overseas development assistance, the Government significantly undermined the prospect of getting the necessary funding into developing countries, and in doing so, have made it much less likely they will agree to ambitious decarbonisation targets at COP 26?
Thirdly, on girls’ education, the communiqué commits to the target of getting 40 million more girls into school by 2026, which is terrific. Can the noble Baroness  therefore explain why the Government have cut their bilateral support for girls’ education in the poorest countries by 40%? Can she explain whether the funds the Government have announced for the Global Partnership for Education are new money or simply a new announcement of old money?
The communiqué covers an extremely wide range of issues, but one final issue leapt out of the page for me. The text praises the
“incredible contribution of caregivers in our societies … and the importance of improving decent working conditions for these caregivers”.
What improved provision do the Government have in mind? Will they, as a start, commit to improving the provision of respite care so that carers, who are increasingly at the end of their tether as Covid restrictions continue to affect them, will get at least some relief from the very onerous daily burdens they carry?
The Prime Minister includes in his Statement reference to the trade deal with Australia. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the absolute maximum benefit this trade deal could conceivably deliver equates to one penny per person per week? Does she accept that the cost of this derisory benefit will be overwhelmed by the damage the deal threatens to do to our livestock industry—particularly in upland areas—and that the potential increased access to Australia for young people is frankly risible compared to their reduced access to live, work and study in Europe as a result of Brexit?
The Statement very wisely ignores the unseemly row on the margins of the summit around the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and perhaps that is a matter for another day. But may I remind the noble Baroness that the single most important ingredient for conducting summits and international affairs successfully is trust? Through his unwillingness to stick to international law and his track record of breaking his promises, this Prime Minister has squandered it. Until it is rebuilt, our influence on the world stage will remain seriously impaired.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments and questions. They both rightly asked about vaccinations and, as they will know, G7 leaders committed to providing at least a further 1 billion doses to the poorest countries to help vaccinate the world by the end of 2022 through dose sharing and finance. The G7 will share at least half of these by the end of 2021. We have committed to providing at least 100 million surplus Covid vaccine doses to the rest of the world within the next year and 5 million will be shared by the end of September, with another 30 million by the end of 2021.
The noble Baroness is right that sharing supply, boosting manufacturing and funding the COVAX scheme all have critical roles. That is why G7 leaders talked about, and want to take concrete actions to overcome, bottlenecks and want to boost manufacturing so that we can increase the supply. The vaccines we will be providing will be across all our supply: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen and Moderna. We will be working with leaders to continue to ramp up that effort.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord rightly raised climate change and the work done on that. Commitments were made at the summit. Most G7 countries will be reducing emissions by more than half by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. All countries will formally commit to their specific reductions when submitting their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Each country will also set up policy plans and milestones on how they plan to meet these, as we have done with our carbon budget.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the climate finance commitment and, of course, we were the first G7 member to substantially increase our commitment. At the summit, Canada committed to doubling its climate finance through to 2025 and France, Germany, Japan and the US also agreed to increase their commitments, so there was welcome progress.
Both the noble Baroness and noble Lord talked about girls’ education, which is a priority for this Government. At the G7 summit, the Prime Minister announced that we will be pledging £430 million to the Global Partnership for Education for the next five years, which is our largest pledge ever and an uplift of 15%. At the summit the G7 collectively pledged at least $2.7 billion towards the Global Partnership for Education and we will continue to encourage partners around the world to contribute to that fund.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. We are working to support the Good Friday agreement and urgently need to find solutions to support the peace process and minimise disruption. There was discussion of the protocol with our European partners at the summit. Those discussions will continue because we all want to ensure that we get to a satisfactory resolution.
The noble Baroness seemed to suggest that there had not been much movement on, for instance, global tax, over the last few years. But at the G7 we saw a major breakthrough on the issue that has been under discussion for over five years, particularly back in the historic two-pillar international agreement on global tax reform, to address the tax challenges we face. We are very hopeful that this agreement will provide a strong basis for securing a more detailed and comprehensive agreement among the G20 and OECD in July.
On the Australia trade deal, I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to know that the UK-Australia trade relationship was worth £13.9 billion last year and is set to grow under this deal. I assure him that British farmers will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for 15 years, using tariff-rate quotas and safeguards. To the noble Baroness I say that, when the agreement is published, there will be a chapter on animal welfare, because we have been very clear that we will not compromise on our high standards. I can also confirm that, of course, formal scrutiny of the ratification process will take place once we have laid the final agreement—this will be once we have undergone legal checks—and the impact assessment will be published with it.
The noble Lord asked about the Atlantic charter. It recognises that the values that the US and UK share remain the same as they were in 1941, including defending democracy, reaffirming the importance of collective security and building a fair and sustainable global  trading system. There was a very constructive relationship between the Prime Minister and President Biden, and it was a very successful summit.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Perhaps there is just time to say to the noble Baroness that there were a number of specific questions that she did not answer. Can she look through the notes and respond in writing if possible?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: If there are questions that I have not answered, I will.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Lord Bates: My Lords, the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our shared prosperity and security for over a century and should remain so. Therefore, I warmly welcome the New Atlantic Charter. The original charter was a catalyst for promoting free trade through the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Given that the pandemic has hit the world’s poorest hardest, with an estimated 150 million people pushed back into extreme poverty, while the world’s richest have seen their fortunes increase by over 25%, how can this new charter emulate its predecessor by re-energising free trade, which benefits the poorest people in the poorest countries, and steer us away from protectionism, which favours the rich in the richest countries?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank my noble friend. When the Prime Minister and the President met in Cornwall, they agreed that the revitalised charter was a fitting testament to the sheer breadth and depth of co-operation between our countries. They have resolved to take this co-operation further by expanding trade and progressing towards a UK-US free trade agreement and of course, as he rightly said, by continuing to promote the benefits of free trade more globally.

Lord Ricketts: My Lords, I congratulate the organisers of the G7 summit on their practical arrangements and welcome the outcome of the NATO summit. The major democracies really have found their collective voice again, even if the opportunity for the UK to send a signal in Cornwall that we were working in unison with our friends on the big global issues was spoiled by the Prime Minister engaging in a very public row with European leaders. Bearing in mind that the hallmark of a really successful G7 is that its conclusions get implemented, could the noble Baroness tell us which organisation will be responsible for delivering what I think is the most innovative idea of the summit, the Build Back Better World partnership, to unlock billions in private investment for green infrastructure in poorer countries?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the noble Lord and assure him that the proposition will now be worked up by a designated task force that  will consult with developing countries and other key partners and will report back to leaders on progress in the autumn.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there is much to welcome in the communiqué post the NATO conference. The continental European nations in particular are seeming to wake up to the wide-ranging threat posed by Russia and the challenge presented by China. The revitalised Atlantic charter, new strategic concept and higher level of ambition set by the NATO 2030 agenda are crucial for our future security. Does the Minister agree that these aims call inevitably for an increase in European nations’ national defence expenditure and NATO common funding? Does she also agree that the UK should continue to lead by example and commit to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP to ensure that these new commitments, agreed by the Prime Minister, are met?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: At the NATO summit, leaders did indeed recommit to NATO’s defence investment pledge target of investing 2% of GDP in defence—10 allies meet that target now, and 20 are on track to meet it by 2024. Since 2014, defence investment by non-US allies has increased for seven consecutive years, with a real increase of 4.1% in 2021. So there is still work to do, but we are getting there.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: Unlike the UK-hosted Gleneagles summit, which had the communiqué reference to the 0.7% target and the UK encouraging all other G8 members to meet it, and unlike the Lough Erne summit, where the Prime Minister’s official documentation and public statements encouraged other G8 members to meet the 0.7% target, this year there was no mention of any Minister encouraging any G7 country to meet that target. Will the Leader, as a member of the Cabinet, take the opportunity now, at the Dispatch Box, to encourage her G7 counterparts to meet the 0.7% UN target?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am certainly happy to reiterate at the Dispatch Box that the UK is a world-leading aid donor. We have the third-largest budget in the G7 and will spend at least £10 billion in aid this year. We remain one of the highest contributors to overseas development in the G7, as a share of GNI and pound for pound.

Baroness Fall: The original vision of the G7 was a fireside chat, where the world’s most powerful men and women addressed the world’s most pressing problems—and there are certainly many of those. Sometimes these meetings can miss the mark, but I was proud of this one. However, as usual, the devil is in the detail and the execution. Therefore, I will ask about the language on climate change: what is their plan to bring China, India and Brazil to the table ahead of the COP and to boost global partnerships for education? What about the drastic cuts to other funds for girls in education? In Carbis Bay, we saw a welcome return to multinationalism, including a consensus on how to manage China, but there is way more work to be done. I am sure that, like me, the Minister was  proud of Britain’s hosting of the G7, but will she agree that we have our work cut out to ensure that we can be proud of its legacy?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As the noble Baroness will be aware, China is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases and accounts for more than half of the global demand for coal—so we want to work with China in the run-up to COP to raise its ambition on climate change and find a path to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees at COP 26.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Cornish weather and on managing not to insult or annoy Canada. The biggest challenge to the G7 was clearly the accelerating pandemic, which has now taken 3.5 million lives across the world, with more dying this year already than in all of last year. The shaming fact is that only 0.3% of vaccine supply currently goes to low-income countries. Some 11 billion doses are needed now—so I am afraid that the G7 failed the challenge. Its aspiration to supply 870 million doses by the end of next year, and our talk of contributing 100 million, is painfully inadequate in both quantity and speed. I am afraid that Gordon Brown is right. Will the Minister please convey to the Cabinet the feeling of very many of us in this House that it would be good if we raised our game on vaccine supply before the G20 meeting in Venice?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the noble Lord for his comments. He is right that this is a huge global challenge and we all need to work together to deliver on it. However, I point out that the Oxford vaccine is a very important way of helping tackle this pandemic. Of course, we part-funded it, and it is being produced at cost to low and middle-income countries and at scale through manufacturing partnerships across the world. This is already ensuring that more than half a billion doses of the vaccine are available across the world. Of course, we have to ensure that we continue to roll it out, but it is also worth remembering the huge contribution that we have already made through the Oxford vaccine.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure which specific question my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition wanted the Minister to answer, but there is one that she put to her that I would like to repeat, to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to answer it at the Dispatch Box today. From the beginning of discussions on global corporation tax, other countries in the G7 indicated support for an initial rate of 21%, so why do the Government seek to weaken it? Could the noble Baroness please answer that question? At the same time, can she make clear what the Government will do to strengthen global tax systems as a matter of urgency to stop the continuing tax dodging of firms such as Amazon and Google?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said, this was a major breakthrough, and different countries of course have different views on what the minimum rate will be. Compromise is necessary to reach the final agreement among the 130 members of the OECD  inclusive framework, but we think that the position agreed at the G7 is one that the OECD and G20 can coalesce around.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Prime Minister, not least on his theatrical prowess, because yesterday he gave a very good performance of Dr Pangloss in the other place. I return to the point so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord West. Do the Government really appreciate that the ambitions contained in the integrated review and the agreement in Brussels for the “wholesale modernisation” of NATO will require a much larger defence budget than at present, including even the £16 billion promised by this Government over the next four years?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said, it was a very successful summit. I said in response to an earlier question that non-US allies within NATO are increasing their defence spending. The decisions and agreements made at NATO aligned very much with the integrated review, so we will certainly play a leading role, as we always do, in helping to move this forward.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the aim to expand the G7 into a D11—a new grouping of democracies. Will that consist purely of heads of nation states or will it continue to include the two chief EU figures, as hitherto? I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s aim to move on from the outdated “special relationship” phrase, which was used so much with the USA. Does my noble friend recall the observation of our noble friend Lord Hague a decade ago that our links with America should be “solid but not slavish”? Does she agree that a revised US connection should be based more on partnership than on simple followership? Should we not have our noble friend Lord Hague’s wise adage very much in mind?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Government’s aim in inviting Australia, India, South Korea and South Africa to the G7 summit was to increase co-operation among democratic like-minded partners on global issues, reflecting our shared value of openness. We do not see this grouping of 11 democracies as fixed, limited or replacing the G7, but it was a symbol of our desire with others to strengthen like-minded international co-operation. We look forward to the US-hosted Summit for Democracy, which will take place later this year.
On my noble friend’s point about America, he is absolutely right. The original Atlantic Charter demonstrates that the UK-US relationship has been one of partnership rather than followership for decades. We look forward to that continuing.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, at a time when Africa accounts for more than 20% of the world’s population but has less than 3% of global GDP, and less than 2% of the continent is vaccinated, what reassurances can be taken from the G7 summit that more urgent focus will be given to administering the vaccine programme, addressing conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and assisting with family planning in Africa?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: At the summit, the G7 leaders announced plans to deepen the G7’s current partnership with developing countries and deliver a new deal for Africa, including magnifying support from the IMF for countries most in need. The increased funding for COVAX will help with the vaccine rollout within countries in Africa.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, it was reported that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations had observer status at the summit. Was this regarded as a successful new initiative and is it likely to be repeated? It seemed to me to be very welcome.
I welcome the strong wording in the G7 communiqué about establishing the Democracy 11, and the strong wording in the outcome of the NATO summit about defending the borders of free nations in the east of Europe from Russian expansionism. Will the Government therefore guarantee that any current support available for conflict prevention, peacebuilding and institution building in those eastern European nations will be maintained, despite the cuts to the budget for official development assistance in the UK?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I have said in response to previous questions, we remain and will remain a world-leading aid donor. Officials are currently looking through the implementation plans for our spending and I am sure that the noble Lord’s comments will be taken into account.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, we very much welcome the G7 meeting here in Cornwall, where I speak at the moment, and we thank those who came for the good weather. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, what I really welcome is the concept of the Build Back Better World initiative. However, it seems potentially far too complex as it is explained at the moment. As we know from the Marshall plan after the Second World War, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the belt and road initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, having simple single funders for these programmes works best. Will that be the case for B3W?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The new approach is intended to give developing countries access to more, better and faster finance while accelerating the global shift to renewable energy and sustainable technology, and it is intended to expand the current investment offer by bringing in private finance for clean and green infrastructure in developing countries, to ensure that they have autonomy over their climate investments and ensure financial sustainability and access to cutting-edge technology and financing projects. As I said, a designated taskforce will look at the details, consult developing countries and other partners and report back on progress in the autumn.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I welcome as a first step the proposal on the 100 million surplus doses that the UK is now committed to. As we know, low-income countries desperately need more vaccines, and quickly. The PM confirmed yesterday that those vaccines will be donated on top of the existing aid budget,  which is great news, but does that mean that they will be funded on top of the 0.5% of GNI or on top of the £10 billion of aid already committed? The former would be very welcome, and I hope the first step on a road back to 0.7%, but the latter would mean that these vaccines were paid for by the surplus of mistakenly overcutting our life-saving aid programmes. Can my noble friend clarify that point?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The cost of donating the UK’s vaccine surpluses will be classified as ODA and will be in addition to the £10 billion already committed to in aid this year.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: The next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, this has been an extraordinary week of summits. Two questions on the ambitions of the integrated review arise from the concluding statements. First, the US and the EU at their summit committed to co-ordinate policies and actions and to establish a US-EU high-level dialogue on and with Russia. With whom does the UK plan to pursue its interests vis-à-vis Russia? Will it be along with the US-EU framework or bilaterally with Russia? Secondly, Presidents Biden and Putin reaffirmed the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Does the UK support that principle, and will it say so?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I do not think that any of us want a nuclear war—I certainly do not —so I am certainly happy to put that on the record. We will work with partners globally, internationally and through all fora, including NATO, in relation to Russia.

Lord Polak: My Lords, I congratulate the organisers of the summit, including the police and other authorities, in ensuring not only its success but its safety.
The Foreign Secretary said yesterday in relation to the JCPOA that Iran must return to full compliance—and it is not just the stockpile of enriched uranium, which is 16 times the permitted limit, but the operation of centrifuges and production of uranium metal that is of deep concern. The opening paragraph of the statement says that the aim of the G7 summit
“was to demonstrate how the world’s democracies are ready and able to address the world’s toughest problems, offering solutions and backing them up with concrete action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/21; col. 283.]
What are the solutions and concrete actions in relation to Iran?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The G7 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon, and they welcome the substantive discussions between the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action participants and separately with the United States to accomplish a return of the  United States and Iran to their commitments. The leaders agreed that a restored and fully implemented plan of action could also pave the way to further address wider regional and security concerns, and condemned Iran’s support for proxy forces and non-state armed actors, including through financing training and the proliferation of missile technology and weapons.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Children
 - Motion to Take Note

Baroness Morris of Yardley: Moved by Baroness Morris of Yardley
That this House takes note of the case for the urgent levelling up of opportunities available to the children of the United Kingdom which have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular with regard to (1) education and skills, (2) health, (3) inequality, and (4) the elimination of child poverty.

Baroness Morris of Yardley: My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this debate on a very important topic. It is a widely drawn debate, and having seen the speakers’ list, I look forward to good contributions from knowledgeable people on a whole range of issues that affect children and young people. I suppose we will disagree with each other as the debate goes on—we should do, because these are contentious issues in some cases—but I do not doubt that everybody who has chosen to speak in the debate is committed to the well-being of children and young people, wants the best for them and wants life for children in the future to be better than it is at the moment.
Children have had a rough deal in the pandemic, though I am not sure whether they have been the most affected group. It is not a competition; I am not sure what is to be gained by pitting one group of our population against the other to see who has fared worse. But as adults, we have a natural obligation to look after children—in fact, it is a legal and moral duty. It has been our inability, as adults, in whatever role we have, to do that as well as we would have liked that leads us to be more concerned and worried about the effect that the pandemic has had on children.
I do not believe that these children are a lost generation. They will grow up to be a generation of adults that does wondrous things: they will be teachers, doctors, business leaders and parents, who shape society with exactly the same opportunity we have had. Do not talk them down. There is a real worry that, in talking about the lost generation, expectations will be fulfilled; no one would want that to happen. But how easy it is for them to become a great generation depends a great deal on what we do now, as we come out of the pandemic.
Even before the pandemic, we were a country that probably had greater inequalities than any other country in the developed world. In poverty, in health and in schools, the inequalities that seem to be structural in  our society have bedevilled us for decades. If you are poor, you are less likely to be healthy; and if you are poor and not healthy, you are less likely to do well in school; and if you do not do well in school, you are less likely to be able to take advantage of opportunities as you grow older. When you put that structural inequality in the United Kingdom together with the economy of austerity that we have had in the decade prior to the start of the pandemic, you realise that children went into the pandemic with an unequal chance of thriving.
It was not easy for any child: whether rich or poor, and from whatever part of the country, it was not easy. But when services closed in March, some children were hit worse because they depended more on those services and institutions than others did—children who depended on schools for space to study, books to read or food to eat; young people who felt safer, more valued and more cared for at school than at home; and children whose parents relied, week in and week out, on social services and healthcare professionals for help and support in bringing them up. Thousands of aspirational parents from low incomes and with few facilities at home found that their working partnership with their children’s teacher was disrupted. All those things happened above and beyond children not having their lessons taught.
It would have been difficult to promise, going into the pandemic, that no child would suffer; that we would, during that year, be able to make sure that no child was left behind. Anybody who said that was sowing false expectations. But these are children—these are the people for whom we have a responsibility. What we needed at that point was a Department for Education that performed better than it ever had before, and better than it ever dreamed that it could. That is the quality of the leadership we needed and the quality of the vision we wanted.
I saw that quality elsewhere in government: rough sleepers were taken off the streets and into hotels in a remarkably short period of time; the furlough system got money in people’s pockets in a few months; the help for creative and art institutions came through in a bigger amount than they might have expected; and there was the vaccination programme. People speak well of those initiatives, and our citizens are proud of what the Government were able to do. But when you look at the department that was charged with being the best it could be for our children, you do not see that story. You do not hear people say what a wonderous thing it was and what great services it delivered during the pandemic.
I would make one exception to that: the Oak academy was a real success. It will last for years and leave a legacy for teachers to use in future. But that was universal provision; every child benefited from the Oak academy. The other initiatives were targeted at the most disadvantaged children, and they were not successful, such as the laptops that should have been in children’s homes. I talked to teachers as the summer holiday started; they were still chasing worn-out laptops from local businesses because they were not getting them from the Government. Schools were made to drop the systems they were running themselves and take up the Government’s free school meal vouchers—and  they did not work by summer school. On the catch-up programme, only half the number of schools anticipated were involved and fewer than half of the children were from less advantaged backgrounds. In all that time, the DfE managed, in one month from mid-March, to send 150 documents to head teachers telling them what to do.
Teachers tried to compensate for that. I heard too many stories of teachers taking school meals round to children’s doors; of teachers trying to fix worn-out IT kit; and of teachers who spent their time knocking on kids’ doors, to make sure they were safe. While they were doing that, they were not teaching children. All this meant that the children from the least advantaged backgrounds ended up having less time in the classroom. Some 80% of children from private schools got live, online lessons; almost 60% of children in state schools from more affluent backgrounds got the same; and 40% of children from less affluent backgrounds found themselves with online lessons. Of course that will lead to an achievement gap. Whether it is stated by Ofsted, the NFER or EF, it does not matter, I am not going to argue about the degree of left-behindness: no one I have heard from says that those children were not left behind.
The same is true of health. Although one of the consequences of the pandemic has meant that we cannot collect the statistics, I do not think anyone disagrees that reported mental health difficulties and the demand on services have increased. The one figure we do have shows that infant mortality in all four nations has increased as well. The figures for poverty show that one in three children in Birmingham is on free school meals, and one in five schools in our country has now opened a food bank.
However we went into the pandemic, we are emerging from it with a generation of children who have lost learning, have less confidence and feel greater insecurity. That is what the Government’s catch-up programme had to address—that was the task. Unless it can meet those needs, overcome those obstacles and see a future for those children, it is not worth its name.
They made a good start: they appointed one of the best educationalists I know, in Sir Kevan Collins. No one who has worked with Sir Kevan would not want to work with him again. He has decades of experience and has never shied away from a hard fight or a tough task. He must have, over those months, developed a programme that got the approval of both the Department for Education and the Prime Minister—without that, it would never have been presented to the Treasury. All that was wrong was that the finance was not agreed. What message does that give to our nation about how much we care about children and young people? Having a departmental leader who did not deliver during the early stages of the pandemic and a Prime Minister who would not give the money to sign off the catch-up programme hardly fills us with confidence about what the future will be for this generation.
What we are left with now is basically a meagre programme of tutoring and a very small amount of money going into teacher development for teachers and early years. We can argue about the money—whether it is more than Holland, less than America; whether it is this amount per day, or that amount per year—it is  not enough. I have not met one teacher or one citizen who said, “That’ll do; that’ll give us a good start and set us on our way”. It is not enough and will not do enough things. Boris Johnson should not have said in his press release, “We will make sure no child is left behind.” Gavin Williamson should not have said in his press release that he is “incredibly proud” of this programme. It is not a programme of which our Government should be proud.
It is no good saying that the money is on its way; that will be too late. Look at the damage done in 12 months; it will just potentially cause more damage as well. That is why Labour, through our shadow spokesperson, Kate Green, has put forward a far more wide-ranging programme that brings together not just education but includes health, recreation and leisure, small-group tutoring for all children, more professional development, as promised by the Government, breakfast clubs and extending free school meals, a good education recovery premium and proper mental health support. But it is not just about the money. What really worries me in this debate is that it is about the lack of ambition and the lack of a vision for our country.
I remember when I was a Minister—anyone who has been in that position will feel the same—that it is often difficult to bring about the big changes you want, because the time is not right: the public are not ready for it; the arguments have not been made; there are too many people who oppose it; there are too many conflicts in taking those policies forward. We have all been there, but at the moment there is a public wish for change in how we provide services for children and young people. The people are inviting their Government to be bold. The argument has been made; we just need a department that will seize the opportunity.
We have changed as a nation. We are a different nation coming out of this pandemic than we were going in, and I think that all of us better understand the barriers to learning. All of us now know that children are poor and that makes a difference to what they can achieve and how they live their lives. I hope that I never again hear the idea that the problem for poor children is that they go to poor schools and have the worst teachers, because very often the reason those schools are not at the top of the list is because of the barriers they have to work with, with children, to overcome. I think that is understood in a more widespread way in our country than it used to be.
As a nation we have come to terms with the importance of digital technology and know that we have to make the leap. As a nation, we are no longer prepared to put academic excellence ahead of a child’s mental health. We have learned to value a broader range of activities—the sports, the arts and creativity for children. We have been reminded of what our values of compassion, citizenship, care, giving and receiving have been. I think we appreciate now that the best thing we can give our children is the resilience and the commitment both to themselves and to others that has been so much needed during the pandemic. People want something different. It is an invitation to the Government to be bold.
I am reminded of the last opportunity when that probably existed, which was at the end of the Second World War. People wanted change. There was an  invitation to the Government to be bold. They wanted a different world, and I think back to what changes there were for children in those Acts: school nurses, dental checks, school meals, eye checks, school milk, orange juice. In education, whatever you think about it—and I did not like it—the tripartite system was a massive change, as was free secondary education for all. We had the introduction of child benefit, the development of council housing, the beginning of municipal, local authority leisure facilities. Looking round, we were the beneficiaries of that; we are the levelled-up generation. It is us, sitting here, at our age, who are the levelled-up generation, and we ought to remember what that has done for us and make sure that that is what we do now for the next generation.
It needs an umbrella such as the welfare state. Whether you call it a children’s plan or whatever you call it, it needs to be a range of activities that are brought together. I do not mind who leads it, I just want somebody competent to be in charge, to take us forward. I do not think the DfE, health or the Department for Work and Pensions can do it alone: it has to be people who work together. If we had a children’s plan now, and if the Prime Minister undertook that every policy his Government look at will be viewed for its impact on children and making this a more equal society, we might actually get somewhere. I do not claim to have all the answers to this, but I am as confident as I can be that unless we take this radical, bold route, we will not deliver for our people and we will not be able to successfully respond to the call for a different sort of society. Here are my starters for 10, and I am sure we will hear others throughout the debate.
I wonder whether the new office for health promotion could have, at its core, looking after children. I really am persuaded—as an educationalist, I must say—that if children were healthier, a lot of other things in education would be easier as well. So, can we charge the office for health promotion with putting children’s health at its centre? Can all children’s services be based on school sites, so that they are more easily delivered? Is it too difficult to have a regulation that means children should not live in flats without gardens, but should live in houses with spare space around them? Can we not provide money to local authorities so that they do not have to close swimming pools and other leisure facilities? Schools must change as well. Have we not learned that children need computers? Can we not give every child that starts school a laptop computer in the way that I was given an exercise book and a textbook to take home? It is the equivalent for this generation, under what could be a children’s plan.
To be honest, the curriculum has not changed for 30 years, and one more push for a year 1 phonics test will not get us out of this pandemic. We need a curriculum that is broader, that values creativity, values sport, and, more than that, understands how they all fit together so that children can flourish. It is not that children need to do those things; it is that children are complicated beings—they need those things to come together so that they can be at their best. I think that people have turned back or spoken aloud. I do not think anyone in this country ever lost their values or their vision of what kind of country we could be;  I think, in a strange way, that the pandemic has given them permission to talk about it and say how important it is. I think that adults want a school system that works with parents and the wider community to instil citizenship and values in our schools.
The trouble is that the Minister could stand up and say that all those things are done already—and she would be right, as there is little tick box for each of them that she can tick off, but it does not deliver. It is not big enough, bold enough or delivered in a way that excites people and manages to do what it should do for children and young people. I am not confident at the moment that the Government understand the extent of the challenge or have the will and the wisdom to take us forward, but I am entirely confident that that is what is needed. I very much look forward to the contributions in the debate today, because I suspect that if we can put them all together, we will have been of great assistance to the Minister and her department in taking forward a plan for children and young people for the future.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on securing this vitally important debate and on her excellent opening speech. She has clearly demonstrated that, from the early years through to childhood and adolescence, the pandemic has left its mark on disadvantaged young people. I want to focus briefly on three areas: early years, social care and mental health.
It is well documented that the early years are a crucial stage for social mobility. This is when the gap in outcomes between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers first takes hold. Recent polling carried out by the Sutton Trust found that over half of parents of two to four year-olds feel that their child’s physical, social and emotional development has been adversely impacted by the pandemic. To transform prospects for children in all parts of the country, we need to start young, and I believe that early years education should form a central plank of our nation’s education recovery. Above all, we need to see early years provision as an opportunity to provide a great start in life for children, and not just as a way of providing childcare.
Many disadvantaged three and four year-olds are currently locked out of additional government-funded childcare. Bizarrely, they cannot access these vital early years opportunities simply because their parents do not earn enough money. Surely such levelling down is an unintended consequence of policies just not being properly thought through. All children deserve the same opportunity to play, learn and thrive, so it is vital that eligibility be extended to those in low-income households if levelling up is to mean anything. Could the Minister explain this anomaly to me?
Child poverty destroys childhoods and causes irreparable damage to our children’s future health and productivity, but even before the pandemic we were heading in the wrong direction. There can be no progress on the Government’s plans for recovery and levelling up while child poverty continues to rise, and this has a direct impact on children’s social care. Simply put, funding for children’s social care is insufficient to  support families and protect children. The independent review of children’s social care published its first report today, setting out the case for change within children’s social care. The report found that the system is weighted against early intervention and family support, that a lack of co-ordination across national government is reflected locally, and that more older children are going into care, partly due to a lack of early intervention and support for families. These things need to change, but this will happen only if local authorities receive sufficient funding from the upcoming spending review. What assurance can the Minister give that children’s social care will be given real priority in the spending review discussions, rather than languishing in its usual Cinderella status?
With councils reporting growing overspends on children’s social care and struggling to fulfil their statutory duty, many have shifted funding from early intervention to late intervention and crisis services. But if prospects are to dramatically improve for children, we need a far greater focus on family support and early intervention before things reach crisis point. After many years of advocating this, I have come to the conclusion that it will happen only if the Government introduce a legal duty on local authorities and statutory safeguarding partners to provide early help to children and families. Could the Minister say what plans the Government have to introduce such a duty?
The same argument holds true for children’s mental health. All the recent evidence suggests that the pandemic has had a serious impact on children’s mental health, including traumatic experiences such as bereavement, social isolation and a breakdown in networks. A YoungMinds survey in January found that 67% of young people with mental health problems believe that the pandemic will have a long-term negative effect on their mental health, with real concerns about not being able to access much-needed specialist support. But the crisis in young people’s mental health long predates the pandemic. Despite significant government investment in children’s mental health, children and young people have not felt the impact, with waiting times continuing to be long and children often not being seen until after they reach crisis point. We will not break the vicious circle of increasing need and lack of provision until we take a preventive approach. That is why I am supporting calls from charities and campaigning groups in the sector for a national rollout of early support hub models, which would ensure that young people in every area across England can access early support for their mental health on a self-referral basis.

Baroness Wyld: My Lords, I start by reminding the House of my registered interests, including as a non-executive board member of Ofsted. It is a real privilege to speak at last in a debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I felt I started an unfortunate tradition whereby she would call a debate, I would put my name down, my own childcare would fall through and I would have to scratch; there is an irony there. I am delighted to be here. I do not agree with her on everything—it is unlikely that I would—but I absolutely agree with her on the call for pace, urgency and leadership at the highest level.
I have “ummed and ahhed” about whether to talk briefly about my own experience of the pandemic, because I am always acutely aware of my own good fortune compared to all the families the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about so powerfully. But your Lordships’ House is quite often accused of being out of touch or somehow other-worldly, and I thought it worth reflecting on the fact that a few of us parents—mainly mums, but a couple of dads—in your Lordships’ House have spent the last year home schooling. In my case, I home schooled my three daughters, who are at various stages in primary school, and I offer a few observations.
We as a country owe an enormous debt of gratitude to teachers, early years workers and those who have done their very best. When you go to the school gate, you can see the tiredness etched on their faces. I think we sometimes forget that they have their own worries and families to think about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, I do not think we should underestimate the emotional and psychological impact that this pandemic has had on children and on the adults who look after them, not least parents. I do not mind telling your Lordships that—again, while acknowledging my good fortune in the grand scheme of things—there were moments on the home-schooling journey when I was pushed to the absolute limit of what I felt I could cope with as a mother. I can safely tell the House that I will never make a maths teacher. So, we do not need a great leap of imagination to envisage how hard it was if you were in a tower block, had no outside space or were a single parent—I could go on.
At the same time, the Public Services Committee has been taking evidence as part of our inquiries into levelling up and looking at how best to support vulnerable children. At times, this challenge is daunting, but there is hope that we are moving into an economic recovery and, fingers crossed, the end of restrictions. I do not think we have any choice but to avoid catastrophising and to avoid phrases such as the “lost generation”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said. We have to move at pace to deliver services that work.
I do think there is a wider debate to be had about where parental responsibility begins and ends—for example, for school readiness—but it is not for today. We are talking about levelling up and what the Government can and should do for those families most in need of support. I want to add my voice to the argument for greater investment in family hubs and, crucially, for more pace. Family hubs ensure that families with children from early years right up until age 19—or up to 25 for those with special educational needs or a disability—can access early help or overcome difficulties and build stronger relationships.
Many families are suffering their toughest times. During the pandemic I have spoken about mothers trying to access perinatal mental health services or parents trying to access speech and language support for children who risk falling even further behind without nurseries or play groups. Support services too often are piecemeal and impossible to navigate, but there are examples of effective family hubs that are up and running. I do not have time to do justice to them all, but I will mention Family Hubs Network sites such as Essex family hubs, where 96% of children identified  at two years old as not achieving age-appropriate development catch up, when they get help, before they start school.
My worry is that the Government have often cited complexity as a barrier to scaling up but, after all, the job of government is to work through complexity and to grip an agenda. So, I am very glad that the Government have established the National Centre for Family Hubs, and I am also grateful to the Family Hubs Network for its briefing on the principles that can help to simplify guidance to providers. In her summing up, can my noble friend confirm that the Government see family hubs as essential to the levelling-up agenda? How are they planning to provide the guidance and financial and other support to local authorities to ensure they can transform their family support?
Last year, I also raised the issue of funding, and I return to that today in summing up. I am the first to acknowledge that the Chancellor will face some very tough choices at the spending review, but aside from the moral case for investment, there is clear evidence that investing early in family services eases or prevents longer-term strain on services. My noble friend the Minister has a very admirable record of advocating for children, young people and social mobility, and I hope she will use all of her powers of persuasion in discussions with the Treasury.
I may have been a pretty rubbish home schooler—my daughter tells me regularly that I was—but I want to be able to look the next generation in the eye, put my hand on my heart and say that, as a Government, when it comes to restoring their life chances, we will do whatever it takes.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for initiating this important debate and for her powerful speech. I also wish her a happy birthday.
Although SARS-CoV-2 does not cause the same severity of illness in children as in other age groups, the pandemic has had a devastating effect on children’s education, social development and access to healthcare, leading to anxiety and mental health problems, all of which will have a long-term impact on their well-being, especially for those from vulnerable families. For today’s debate, I will speak mainly about the effect the pandemic has had on children’s education and health. In doing so, I will exclusively use evidence from various surveys and inquiries involving children.
Data obtained from 6,000 primary schools and nearly 1.5 million pupils found a steep drop in the number of pupils attaining the levels expected in maths, reading and writing, particularly in the six to seven age group. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds fared the worst. The survey also showed that the children in this group were slower to improve on returning from lockdown.
The House of Commons Education Committee has been taking evidence from young people regarding the effects of the pandemic on their education. I am able to quote only a brief account of what some of them had to say about their learning during the pandemic, particularly on more after-school learning to catch up. One of them said that
“it is … important that young people have good wellbeing and are still mentally and physically healthy before that kind of conversation begins. Young people’s mental health during lockdown has worsened.”
Their evidence to the committee makes compelling reading.
Covid-19 will continue to have a major impact on young people’s education and skills opportunities for some time to come. That is evident across the learning landscape, from the cancellation of exams to a reduction in apprenticeship opportunities, which are exacerbating existing inequalities in our education system and, in turn, impacting on career opportunities for young people.
A pulse survey conducted by EngineeringUK last summer of 1,000 11 to 19 year-olds highlighted some of the concerns young people have about their future due to the pandemic and lost learning. Some 62% felt that finding a job will be more difficult; 52% felt that going to university would be difficult; 41% did not think that they would find an apprenticeship place; 44% felt that finding a job they could keep would be a problem.
The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill focuses on skills for jobs in the future. As a health professional, I know that there are job opportunities in the health sector, but outwith that, the majority of jobs will need technical and digital skills. To equip young people to get skills in those areas we need to think about addressing the following: making diversity and inclusion a priority in the context of recovery from the pandemic; a new STEM education strategy; a new careers strategy for England; expanding the careers hub, with a dedicated STEM leader; and a fully funded digital learning strategy for schools. By the way, why do we not give free broadband to children from vulnerable homes? We give them old laptops for free. We also need to embed careers into the STEM curriculum. I hope the Minister will comment on those areas.
The pandemic has also had a negative effect on children’s health. While the pandemic has wider health effects on children, it is the mental health aspects that are of great concern. Evidence from children and young people from YoungMinds, which I already mentioned, estimates that one in eight children has a diagnosable mental health condition. A survey of 4,000 paediatricians found late presentations of health conditions, a drop-off in attendance, increased mental health problems in children and delayed presentation of childhood cancers.
The Children’s Commissioner recently conducted a children’s survey, The Big Ask, to hear from children. More than half a million children responded. I gather that the report will be published in the summer, but preliminary data suggest that mental health is one of the key concerns of the children surveyed. This will be an important report, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate it.
We all know that the pandemic has had a huge negative impact on children’s education and health. Any recovery plans should address not only educational aspects but well-being and, importantly, the mental health of children.

Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on a speech every word of which I endorse and cannot really add to. I sympathise enormously with the noble Baroness,  Lady Wyld. I did some home schooling for a 10 year- old grandson from Liverpool, who looked at the ceiling when I could not understand his maths and said, “I’ll explain it to you.” And he did. I felt what can only be called the appropriate humiliation. I want to ditch much of what I had to say and just point to a couple of things that I think are worth recording in this debate.
The Church of England, which gets knocked for all sorts of things, has been committed to what is now called levelling-up for some time. We have been investing heavily in initiatives and change programmes such as the strategic development funding, with, up to the end of 2020, 77 projects and £56 million committed to deprived areas. Of the 93 local authorities categorised by the Government as priority 1 for levelling-up, 48 contain projects receiving SDF funding, spread across 20 dioceses, focusing particularly on younger generations and deprived communities in urban and rural contexts.
I could also mention lowest income communities funding, strategic transformation funding and a plethora of social action projects rooted in local communities across the country—by one calculation, 15,100 projects run from churches. In one survey last year, 78% of churches were involved in food banks—a feature of modern Britain that must not become normalised, because the need for them is in itself shameful.
I shall make three points on education and the challenges that have been outlined by many speakers already. First, if children have had their education seriously impacted by the pandemic, then young carers continue to face enormous challenges, sometimes unknown even to their schools. There are more than 800,000 young carers in the UK between the ages of five—I repeat: five—and 18. Prior to the pandemic, 27% missed school and 39% received no extra support, so even extra tutoring will not help them. I ask the Minister whether the Government will commit to strategic funding of extra educational and pastoral support for young carers. The gap is widening between those with the resources to weather the pandemic deficits and those without. You just have to listen to the stories of poor access to IT, some of which we have heard today.
Secondly, the Child Poverty Action Group has reasonably proposed that extended schools be funded as part of a strategic educational recovery plan that holds together the disparate but connected impacts of the pandemic on mental health, welfare and so on. I again flog this horse: removal of the two-child limit in welfare provision would be enormously helpful and fruitful. No educational resource will be effective unless it enables parents to support their children in accessing it.
Finally, I declare an interest as the current chair of the Bradford Literature Festival, where we invest heavily in reaching children in tough contexts in order to promote literacy, inspire ambition and fire the imagination. The National Literacy Trust rightly recognises that literacy opens routes to health, social equality, reducing poverty and growing the economy—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said in a debate a couple of days ago, the arts and humanities do not need an economic justification per se. But if one is required, according to research quoted by the NLT, if every child  left primary school with reading skills, the economy could expand by more than £32 billion by 2025. Furthermore, literacy failure is estimated to cost £2.5 billion annually.
Children who suffer now might—not inevitably will, but might—damage or inhibit future generations in aspiration, ambition and imagination. That is more than an economic waste; it will mean that we have failed our children and our grandchildren. That cycle needs to be broken.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morris for creating the space for us to have this debate and for her fantastic introduction to it.
I want to take a step back and talk about child poverty. There is a wealth of evidence of the lifelong impact on an individual of living in poverty as a child. If the Government are serious about levelling up opportunities for children, it is crucial that they act to address child poverty now.
The UK went into the pandemic with unacceptably high levels of child poverty. The latest official figures show that, in 2019-20, 4.3 million children lived in families in relative poverty, which is the globally recognised measure. That is a rise of 200,000 in a year and is up 500,000 over five years—and this is before Covid struck. Do the Government have a plan to reduce child poverty?
If they are serious about levelling up, what are they doing to track and address local variations in child poverty? The official poverty statistics are national. The Government use their own dataset—Children in Low Income Families—to estimate how many children are in relative poverty in different areas, but that does not capture housing costs, which vary hugely by region.
Some interesting new research has tackled this. The End Child Poverty coalition recently released the findings of a new dataset produced for it by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. It used the Government’s local figures but worked back in data on housing costs to look at the effect on poverty rates of higher or lower housing costs in each area.
The results were striking. In nine constituencies in London and Birmingham, the majority of children were below the poverty line last year once housing costs were taken into account. In the north-east, where I live, the child poverty rate is now 37%. In five years, it has gone up by a third, moving the north-east from just below the UK average to the second highest of any region after London. The report concluded:
“This pattern suggests that child poverty is growing at an alarming rate across the urban areas of the North East, whereas the greatest changes elsewhere are more localised.”
What is the Minister’s response to this?
Secondly, on working poverty, the Queen’s Speech briefing document said:
“This Government champions the principle of work as the best route out of poverty and towards financial independence.”
Of course, the problem with that is that poverty among working households has never been higher. In modern Britain, getting into work is no guarantee that you will get out of poverty. Sadly, declaring that you believe something does not make it so.
A recent IPPR report showed how bad things are. It says that working poverty
“has hit a record high … of 17.4 per cent … Couple households with one full-time earner now have a poverty rate of 31 per cent”.
One significant—and bad—shift is that families where one partner works full-time and the other part-time are increasingly being pulled into poverty, and even households with two full-time workers are at a growing risk of being pulled into poverty. Further, big families have really taken a hit. The report states:
“Working poverty rates among families with three or more children have reached”
42%. This will not do.
The IPPR highlights the need to deal with high housing and childcare costs, as well as to “make work pay”. Sadly, however, government action has been going in the opposite direction by slashing work allowances in universal credit, cutting the value of most working-age benefits and, frankly, making a right mess of childcare support. I passionately believe in the need to level up opportunities for all children, but that will never happen until we ensure that families have an adequate and reliable household income.
What of inequality? The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission surveyed people and found that nearly six in 10 believe that the pandemic has increased the gulf between social classes. The commission also points to the growing evidence that those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are being affected most by the pandemic. Young people from the poorest backgrounds are losing their jobs while families are trapped in cramped housing and children from disadvantaged families are failing at school. The commission stated:
“Two-thirds (64%) of the population say that those who are ‘just about managing’ are not getting enough support from the government.”
Moreover, the regional differences were marked. The survey found:
“Only 31% of people in the north-east believe opportunities to progress in their area are ‘good’, compared to 74% in London.”
I am sure that the Minister wants to level up but, really, the Government as a whole will be serious about levelling up only when they take action to tackle the scourge of child poverty in our country. I urge the Government to make it a priority, as the last Labour Government did. If you will the ends, you must will the means as well. Fine words butter no parsnips.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, both on securing this important debate and on her powerful and sincere introduction.
Like my noble friend Lady Wyld and many other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I have the great privilege of serving on the Public Services Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. Over the past year, that committee has been engaged on inquiries central to this debate. A Critical Juncture for Public Services: Lessons From COVID-19 was our first report and, more recently, we have opened inquiries on levelling up and vulnerable children.
Some overriding principles are evident from our work and should be borne in mind whenever government comes forward with proposals to help as we emerge from the shadow of the pandemic—and emerge we will. These principles include the importance of digital provision and local provision, the crucial nature of early intervention—much mentioned already—and the need to commit to mental health, which we have also touched on already. These are some of the most obvious but vital principles from our inquiries; I certainly wish to reiterate their importance.
In looking at levelling up, we as a committee concluded that the concept was not yet clearly defined. It should take note of measures promoting health, social welfare and education, as well as hard infrastructure such as roads and rail and other economic measures. Surely that is something we can agree on. It should also build in local provision—something I have touched on previously—and allow for the local shaping of measures as well.
Turning to children’s education specifically, it seems clear to me that the disruption from the pandemic has affected all children but particularly those from poorer families. It has fairly obviously worsened the position from what existed before the pandemic. Although the Government have increased funding for tutoring, catch-up and classes over the summer and introduced the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill in your Lordships’ House, which will, we hope, provide increased opportunities, it seems that more needs to be done. I trust that the Government will commit to more. For example, will my noble friend the Minister look particularly at extending the school day and the school year, as well as at the importance of vocational training, which has been overlooked?
I also want to make a particular plea for disadvantaged groups—minority ethnic communities, for example, and especially Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, who find themselves in last place when it comes to life chances—and children in terms of the provision of public services as we come out of the pandemic. We also should not lose sight of vulnerable children—the subject of the Public Services Committee’s current inquiry. This inquiry has shown us that more than 800,000 vulnerable children are, according to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, totally invisible to public services. This has not just happened—it is pre-pandemic —but, as in other areas, the position has undoubtedly worsened. This is serious. It is imperative that, through family hubs—again, already mentioned—we act to correct this worrying situation. I look forward to hearing a commitment to family hubs from my noble friend the Minister, particularly on their funding.

Baroness Drake: My Lords, kinship carers are grandparents, uncles, aunts, elder brothers and sisters and friends who choose voluntarily to raise vulnerable children who cannot stay with their parents. They save the state billions in care costs. There are more than 180,000 such children and they have long suffered from insufficient attention in public policy and from decision-makers. Kinship children have suffered tragedy and trauma. According to a 2019 survey by the Family Rights Group, the main reasons for a child  being in kinship care were parents’ mental health and substance abuse, domestic abuse, parents being unable to cope and parents in prison. There are different legal arrangements under which children are in kinship care, with differing legal duties, processes and eligibility for support. Legal arrangement rather than need can irrationally determine access to support.
Many kinship children have additional needs or disabilities, but typically no clear route to greater educational support. While some legal arrangements attract priority school admissions and pupil premium plus, other kinship children with similar needs do not get that help. Research reveals that over half of kinship children have needs that are far higher than in the general population, with at least 20% having emotional and behavioural difficulties. Even when they are eligible for pupil premium plus, the Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care found tens of thousands for whom it is not being claimed.
There can be a lack of understanding in schools. Some carers praise the trauma-informed approach of individual schools or staff while others have to deal with teachers and school bureaucracy that show little understanding. The Family Rights Group survey found that 20% of kinship children of school age had been temporarily excluded, 5% permanently. By contrast, the fixed-term exclusion rate at primary and secondary state schools is around 5%. There can be a lack of therapeutic support. The adoption support fund funds therapeutic services for eligible adoptive and special guardianship order families, but excludes other kinship children with the same needs.
During the pandemic, older kinship carers, especially grandparents, were more vulnerable to coronavirus. Carers worry about their children’s well-being and are frightened of what would happen to them if they themselves become ill. Unfortunately, following the return of schools, some carers have been threatened with fines when they have kept children at home. Penalties are imposed rather than solutions found. Census data reveals that kinship households are more likely to be located in the poorest areas and experiencing deprivation. More than one in two kinship carers must give up work or reduce their hours to care for the children but receive little financial support. Kinship carers’ compassion can come at a heavy price. During the pandemic, managing remote learning was challenging, digital poverty was prevalent, kinship children with exceptional needs were often not catered for and some reported loss of support from social services, leaving families under great stress.
My noble friend Lady Morris set out powerfully the strategic challenge that the Government face—as we all do—but may I press particular policies? Educational support should be available based on need and not the legal status of the kinship care. The Government should afford all kinship children, where there is professional evidence or a court decision that they cannot live safely with their parents, the right to free childcare for two year-olds, a designated school member of staff and pupil premium plus. To support kinship children’s education and transition back to school, the Government should extend the remit of the virtual school head and ensure that the national tutoring  programme includes kinship children in all placement types where there is professional evidence of additional need.
The adoption support fund should be extended so that all kinship children have the same access to therapeutic support. The holiday activities and food programme 2021 should extend free school meals to kinship children from struggling households, as recommended in the National Food Strategy and by Marcus Rashford MBE. I ask the Minister—indeed, I urge her—to take these proposals back for urgent consideration, together with the need for the interests of kinship children to be mainstreamed into government policies and measures to level up their life opportunities.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lady Morris for making this debate possible, I take the opportunity to wish her a very happy birthday. I shall risk embarrassing her by saying a little more about why the House should not be surprised by how she set out with remarkable clarity both the challenges and the opportunities we face in respect of our children’s post-pandemic future.
By way of background, in 1997, I was fortunate enough to be invited to serve in your Lordships’ House and, a few months later, offered a role in the then Department for Education and Employment. My job spec, as drafted by the new Secretary of State, David Blunkett, now my noble friend Lord Blunkett, was to go around the country visiting as many schools and meeting as many school principals and teachers as possible in the hope of discovering why we had inherited such a serious recruitment and retention crisis. It was my good fortune to find myself working alongside the then relatively junior Minister in whose name today’s debate is being held. I should like to take just a few moments of my contribution to place on the record what a total joy it was over the following five years to work with, and eventually for, my noble friend Lady Morris; in many respects, they were the best of my life. I am eager not to sound like a character from “The West Wing” but, as many in this House will know from personal experience, my noble friend Lady Morris remains one of those political figures who offers a relatively apolitical person such as myself a reason to believe that politics continues to hold up the possibility of being a genuinely honourable profession and, at its best, offers the opportunity to obtain total integrity while fulfilling a desire, in that overused phrase, to make a difference.
Thanks to the support of my noble friend, I believe that I was able to engage with and come to understand and admire the teaching profession in ways that few outsiders can ever have experienced. Our comparative success was not achieved through massive wage increases; it was done by working to instil trust and professional pride back into an army of talented people, many of whom had forgotten why they had become teachers in the first place. They placed an unusual degree of trust in the Minister, who had been one of them, and that trust was repaid a hundredfold.
For many recent Members of the House, this may sound like ancient history, but as so often in history, the wheels have turned and, for a variety of reasons,  much of that hard-earned trust has evaporated and morale in the teaching profession has returned to a new low ebb. Every one of us who has a child, a grandchild, a niece or a nephew at school understands the enormous debt we owe teachers in both primary and secondary settings, who have helped to navigate the nation’s children through a previously unimaginable 15 months. I should like to think that this is a country in which there would be an outpouring of gratitude for the profession, but I fear that, under cover of the pandemic and its attendant distractions, something very different is being attempted.
One characteristic of authoritarian states is to promote policies and practices in terms that are precisely the opposite of their intended effect. So it is, I believe, with the document published last week by the department entitled Delivering World-Class Teacher Development. This policy, if pursued, will have the effect only of diminishing the confidence and competence of an entire profession. I stress “profession” because many in our House have devoted a great deal of their lives to promoting and protecting it. I do not for one moment attach blame for this misadventure to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but the proposals in this document can be interpreted not only as an attack on academic freedom but as an ideologically driven attempt at social engineering—a form of social engineering whereby the Government can decide from whom, how and from where they wish the next generation of teachers to emerge.
This House has always defended the principle of academic freedom as being, along with the independence of the judiciary and a free and responsible press, something worth dying in a ditch for. That being the case, once they have studied them, many in this House are unlikely to approve of these proposals. I beg the Minister to use her good judgment and take this document back to the department for a wholesale rethink before the entire education world comes to understand its underlying purpose and all our children are made to suffer for a clearly clumsy and ideologically driven misjudgment.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, I also offer the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, best wishes for a very happy birthday. She is a doughty champion of education and skills, as was evidenced in her brilliant opening speech, and that is the area on which I will speak. It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
We are all only too aware that the Covid pandemic has severely affected children’s education. As lessons went online, with children to be taught by parents at home, parents realised that teaching is a skilled profession and began to appreciate teachers as never before. Children whose parents did not have the time, the education or the will to become teachers suffered most, and they were often those who were most deprived in the first place. It has been reported that the social and emotional development of those in the early years has been negatively impacted. Over two-thirds felt that children had suffered through lack of play and interaction with other children. When they could no  longer ignore the situation, the Government woke up to the fact that, for children to learn online, they would need a computer, laptop, iPad—some device to be able to access online lessons. The distribution of this equipment did not go altogether smoothly. Many children found themselves having to share with one or more siblings. The Government made efforts to distribute kit to the most needy, but then came the question: did they know how to use computers? The families most in need were those most baffled. These children also lost out most from the lack of social contact with their contemporaries, and they often missed the free school meals which would have helped their physical strength, even as their academic skills were withering.
I note that there is a Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill in the offing which will include new duties on public bodies, government and companies to work towards the realisation of a series of national well-being goals, in addition to creating the post of a UK future generations commissioner and a Joint Committee on future generations. But how long will all that take? Children have lost months of school time. Many have lost the ability to sit still in class, concentrate and enjoy learning. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, they have lost ambition and resilience. Some, with a diet of finger meals on the sofa, have lost the ability to hold a knife and fork to eat a proper school dinner at the table. As with so many Covid outcomes, it will take money, but also dedication, time, patience and skill for teachers to recapture that lost time. The main burden will fall on teachers, many of whom burnt themselves out creating meaningful and fun lessons during lockdown, in the hope that the children had the tools to access them and the encouragement to concentrate. Will they be incentivised by increased access to bursaries and by increased pay?
The most disadvantaged children could neither access the lessons nor had the parental support to learn. What plans do the Government have to focus on these children, who lost most without the discipline and society of school? There have been suggestions of summer camps and of recruiting volunteers to help with catching up. The localities where this will work best will, of course, be those with benefits already. Those in inner cities or remote rural areas will probably have little access to these ventures. Will the pupil premium be extended to 16 to 19 year-olds? They need all the help they can get. How about an extended school programme, to include music, art, drama, sport and all the other life-enhancing activities which can do so much to help children shine when academic work is proving challenging? We also need positive recruitment of teachers for digital skills, which have been woefully underfunded but will be so critical to the next generation, as they are proving to ours. There is so very much to do; how can we trust this wavering Government to work with experts and professionals to find the best way forward to ensure that our children are equipped for adult life and employment? We cannot afford to lose a whole generation. We do not just need warm words; we need real, joined-up actions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morris on her wonderful, heartfelt speech. We know that she actually means it, which gives it greater power. I also wish her a happy birthday. As she knows, we never forget each other’s birthday; it is my birthday as well, so we have no excuse. I am new to this place, so I hope it is in order to say that she and I spoke before the debate. I was mesmerised by the number of reports, plans and statistics that there were on this issue, which is a crucial one to us all. I wondered if I should write all these statistics down or just try and tell a meaningful story about them. She and I thought that the Minister would have all the statistics. We can argue about this or that but, at the end of the day, everybody in this Chamber and beyond is motivated by the fact that the pandemic has shown, starkly, that the level of inequality and poverty in this country is simply unacceptable, whatever the reason for it. We have to find a way of dealing with it and doing something about it.
It was quite a number of years ago that I was teaching but I remember, unfortunately, that the poverty in some schools and families was a disgrace then. It is a failure on the part of all of us—including me—that, if I went back to some of those areas, some of those same people, families and schools would be dealing with the very same deprivation and poverty now. That just cannot be right. This is such a brilliant debate to have, because the challenge to all of us is: how is it going to be different in the future? If the pandemic is anything, is it not a wake-up call to all of us—not only in this country—that we need to do better? I am sick of it, frankly. When I go to some communities, I do not know how some of these children cope. I do not know how they deal with the level of poverty. We all know the brilliant work done by food banks, including in my former constituency, and I do not decry what they do, but the ever-increasing reliance on charity and food banks cannot be right.
We all want the recovery plan to succeed. What is in it that will make it work in a way that many policy initiatives in the past have not? Previous Governments of all colours have set out to deal with poverty, educational underachievement, recruitment of more teachers, housing, food poverty, health inequality and mental health issues. In wishing the recovery plan well, the real question that should ring out from this debate, from this Chamber and from the Minister is: why will it work this time? My own view, which not everyone will agree with, is this: there are obviously issues of funding but if the pandemic has shown one thing it is the power of the state, at both a national and a local level, harnessing the power of the community. When it is clear in what it seeks to do and is properly funded, it can make the difference that we all want.
I will put my speech down; I did not use it. I hope I have done justice to the conversation I had with my noble friend earlier. The figures mean everything, but they mean nothing. Why is this going to make a difference to the children of this country? When I speak on my birthday in 2041—I hope—I want to be able to look back and say that this was the debate that made a difference to this country, and its children, both now and in the future.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate—I am minded to abandon most of my speech as well—and it is a privilege to hear what both my noble friends have said. The House will be relieved to hear that it is not my birthday, but I know that my noble friends could not have spent their birthdays in a better way than taking the opportunity to say what they have said today. To pick up on the point on which my noble friend Lord Coaker finished, what do we mean by “recovery”? What is a “recovery plan”? What do we mean by “levelling up”? Do we mean restoring the status quo and simply repairing damage, or do we take up the challenge that my noble friend set out in her Motion to create a proper vision and a delivery plan for the future?
If it is just about restoring the status quo, it is about acknowledging and accepting those horrendous cast-iron structural inequalities in our system. If it about repairing the damage, it is a temporary fix. If we do not take the opportunity at this unique point, when we do have a mandate for change, to present and deliver something that is critically different, then—my word—we will have wasted an opportunity. We cannot create an economic and social recovery on the backs of children for whom a recovery plan is inadequate, partial and half-baked, as Kevan Collins said.
Over the past 18 months—I have lived with a three year-old during lockdown; I know what that is like—we have seen young babies whose parents have never met a health visitor. We have seen four year-olds who have lost the gift of being sociable, making friends and developing their language. We have seen seven year-olds for whom school was the only safe place in their lives. We have seen 15 year-olds stuck with their computers, if they were in fact so advantaged, and desperate for every other thing that made their lives a pleasure. We have seen 18 year-olds for whom university has been a series of endless Zoom seminars. And, yes, we have had the statistics already this afternoon that children of five and six—the youngest—have lost about 30% of their learning. It is the youngest who take longer to recover, and children in disadvantage have suffered 10% more again.
Returning to the status quo is not an option when it is riddled with such failure, but the pandemic has also revealed new inequalities—people who could work at home and children who could learn at home. Building in intergenerational difficulties and challenges will reproduce and make even worse all those challenges that we had. So what is needed is not a repair job based on a skeleton programme of tutoring, in effect, with a few extras offered as well. As Sir Kevan Collins said in his profoundly serious resignation statement, that is simply not a credible way to build a successful long-term recovery programme to close the gaps in achievement—and he should know. He was asked to advise the Government precisely because he did know, and what he asked for was not just extra money—it was not about double physics after school—but investment in what is needed to reopen children to long-term recovery, because when you close schools, you close children’s lives. He asked for investment in play, language and creative activities to keep children engaged in learning—the extended learning programme that we have heard about.
My noble friend and I, some decades ago, were engaged in a very innovative and imaginative programme to transform what schools could offer outside the school day and the school year. It led to the concept of the extended school day, built on the fact that everything you do outside school by way of creative activities supports, inspires and pins down the learning. It is not an extra; it is something that delivers for every child in every school and every family. I would like to the Minister to meet with me—and perhaps my noble friend, too, if she will join me—so that I can tell her about the research that came out of that, on which I believe Kevan Collins built his thesis.
That is what leads to my sense of urgency—thinking back to some of those families I worked with. In some of them, the children would never have gone to school unless the teachers had collected them from their home. My noble friend gave us some other examples from today, including the teacher whose first job was to sweep up the needles in the playground. That is what poverty looks like, and indeed what it feels like today as well.
I will very quickly ask the Minister to do three things. First, address the problem raised by the Early Years Alliance this week that early years has been willingly, knowingly underfunded in the past few years and must be put right. Secondly, yes, build the programme around literacy, letting teachers design and drive it and bringing in those brilliant agencies such as the National Literacy Trust and the Reading Agency that really know what to do. Thirdly, go back with grace and confidence to Sir Kevan Collins and say, “You were right, we cannot deliver what you want on the basis of what we said”. The Government would have the blessing and support of the country in doing so.

Lord Bichard: My Lords, I know that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for this debate and for her outstanding speech. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of our society and of our economy will be defined by the way in which we educate, support and safeguard this generation of children. Nothing matters more, and nothing is more deserving of public investment, if we are to build back better—or indeed build back at all.
The impact of the pandemic on schooling has been huge, especially for children from poorer families. The NAO recently concluded that our response should have been more effective in addressing especially the problems faced by disadvantaged children. We all know now that the Recovery Commissioner has resigned because, in his view, the support made available fell far short of what was needed. The Early Intervention Foundation has detailed the deterioration in children’s well-being and mental health, and the former Children’s Commissioner revealed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, that more than 800,000 vulnerable children are in fact invisible to public services.
By any standards, our children, and therefore we, are facing a crisis, which demands not a series of funding initiatives but a concerted national effort to put children first—not just a recovery plan but a concerted national effort. What might that involve? First, we need a strategy. I too am a member of the  Lords Public Services Committee and was, frankly, shocked recently to hear a senior civil servant tell us that there is no strategy in government to address the needs of vulnerable children. That says to me that there is no way of setting priorities, co-ordinating action, allocating resources and measuring success. We need a strategy. We also need leadership. The PM’s support for this cause is welcome, but we need to go further. The call by many for a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for children should, on this occasion, be heeded. We need more than a champion, figurehead or tsar; we need someone who can authorise action and be accountable for progress.
There is no disguising the fact that we also need resources far in excess of the current allocations—and not just for education, which has been touched on today. The independent review of social care which, as we have heard, has published its first report, says something with which I agree:
“There is no situation in the current system where we will not need to spend more—the choice is whether this investment is spent on reform … or propping up an increasingly … inadequate … system.”
This is an issue for which resources are important. Although we have made resources available for business and of course for the NHS, allocations to education, social care and mental health have been, frankly, disappointing. We also need to pay more than lip service to the lived experience of parents and children when we come to design our services, so that they are more relevant and more accessible. The policy lab in the Cabinet Office has done some brilliant work around this redesign of services; why cannot we use it as we move forward on the children’s plan?
We could do more to incentivise and deliver collaboration between central government departments, and between the centre and local authorities, the health service, the police and civil society. Because it is nowhere near good enough at the moment and, too often, it leaves children receiving disjointed, fragmented services that cost much more than they should. For example, at the present moment, the directors of children’s services have a statutory responsibility to co-ordinate action, but there is no similar responsibility placed upon health or the police, except in regard to safeguarding. We also need to find ways of sharing data better, so that we can identify quickly where we need to target our support, or just understand the plight of individual children. Many schools at present are not even made aware that a pupil is receiving support from social services, and that quite simply is not good enough.
Finally, as other speakers have said, we need to invest more in early intervention and prevention, because at the moment our actions are often too reactive. Again, the report from the independent review of social care makes the same point today: it says that spending is too often skewed towards acute services and away from effective health. I would say that that is true of every service that impacts on children. For me, putting children first is, as they say in the vernacular, a no-brainer. They just deserve better than we are currently able to give them.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard.
I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morris for devoting her birthday today, like so much of her distinguished life before it, to the care, education, well-being and fulfilment of the United Kingdom’s children. As your Lordships’ House will have come to expect from her, the opening to this debate was expert, eloquent, constructive and practical but also completely devastating. I believe she is right that during the pandemic, which has been the greatest magnifier of every structural and endemic inequality in our society, our children have been let down by the Government. While no member of society should be failed by those charged with their protection, to betray the young is a particularly shameful breach of intergenerational trust in one of the wealthiest places on the planet.
My noble friend has been ably assisted by many contributors from across your Lordships’ House already. It is perhaps invidious to name favourites but I feel compelled to congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on combining the passion associated with the other place, in which he served for so long, with the clarity and eloquence that I associate with your Lordships’ House.
In my short time, I wish to focus on just two areas of this broad terrain of inequality: hardship and ticking generational time bombs. Children and young people’s mental health was in crisis before Covid-19, fuelled by inequality, insecurity and the pressures of new and social media. After so much time in national and international lockdowns, death tolls reminiscent of world wars and such cause for anxiety about the future, that crisis is now in danger of becoming its own pandemic, attacking the mental health of the world’s young. So I commend Labour’s commitment to a full-time counsellor in every single secondary school, and to access to such services for even younger children.
Not for the first time, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me, I urge the Government to use the opportunity in their forthcoming national food strategy to commit to a free, nutritious school breakfast and lunch for every single child in compulsory education in the UK. What a perfect pandemic promise for every child in our nations. This would be comparable and complementary to the provision of universal secondary education itself towards the end of World War Two in 1944. I can think of no better way of giving substantive content to the slogan of “levelling up”. As the state-school-educated child of migrants to this country, who never once knew hunger as a child, I simply cannot tolerate hunger among our young so many years on, nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st century.
It is a challenge to warn any Administration riding high in the polls, not least when buoyed by the NHS vaccine rollout and an instinctive desire for national unity in terrible times, but our children and young people will live long lives and have long memories, continually jogged by an indelible internet. They will not forget that so many of them were locked down without laptops and free broadband for home learning; they will remember that their teachers were attacked and their concerns about international solidarity, racial justice and climate catastrophe were openly mocked as “woke” or “gesture politics” by senior politicians; and they may well reflect on a Government who left them hungry and looking to football players and managers  instead of Ministers for moral leadership and even basic nutrition. That is a pandemic legacy that no wise Government should aspire to.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for this opportunity to discuss the case for the urgent levelling up of opportunities available to children. She made an impassioned speech and I would argue that it resonated across the House. People want change and they are ready for it. Yes, the boxes for many component parts of children’s policies can be ticked, but the evidence that they are connected is missing. Sadly, the delivery structures are not in place to ensure successful cross-departmental connection.
Ticking boxes, as the noble Baroness stated, is not a big enough action. She invited the Government to be bold, and I share that conviction. We have indeed come to terms with the digital economy, but why should the digital economy increase the divide rather than reducing it? We work in Whitehall and Westminster where the structures are outdated; they are not fit for the challenges and, more importantly, the priorities of today, which is why the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, brought to our attention the work of the office for health promotion, which comes into operation this September, bringing together all the strands of government policy that are essential for a cross-departmental children’s policy. It can, it should, it must.
At the moment we pursue a silo approach to many opportunities for children in education, health and welfare, not least in the world of sport and physical activity, which is still embedded in 20th-century structures. This silo mentality depends on whether your responsibility is elite sport, community sport or school sport, with all too little emphasis on health and well-being. That magnifies connectivity problems and demonstrates the vital need for cross-departmental and cross-activity engagements for children, and we need to level up.
The Health Foundation has indicated that young people are experiencing ongoing economic and social impacts that present a risk to their long-term health and well-being. The pandemic, as we all know, has caused huge disruption to young people’s education. During the first lockdown, secondary school pupils had four and a half hours a day of learning compared with six and a half hours before the pandemic. Gaps in education have not been experienced equally: there has been much more lost learning in schools with higher levels of deprivation than in private schools.
For all schoolchildren, the road to normality has been characterised by squeezing out recreation and a healthy active lifestyle, both physical and mental, at the expense of the understandable pressures today on academic studies. I ask the Minister whether in the levelling-up White Paper there is a focus on a strategy to improve sport, health and physical activity. Do the Government recognise the importance of the office for health promotion in the context of this debate?
We face an obesity crisis greater than ever witnessed before in the United Kingdom. We face children with mental health challenges on an unprecedented scale. We need to address this crisis of inactivity and poor well-being in our young people with a national well-being  strategy, backed by a national well-being budget. We need to transform physical literacy and the well-being outcomes of the PE curriculum, and we need a comprehensive review and modernisation of teacher training in this context. Here I strongly support those who are calling for a physical activity guarantee, for a weekly after-school active lifestyle guarantee for every child, and for a guaranteed million hours of sport volunteering. As Professor Doherty, who leads a team of researchers at the University of Oxford studying physical activity and well-being, said:
“We support a national plan that would encourage people of all ages to become more active, less sedentary and improve their cardiovascular fitness to benefit their physical and brain health.”
We missed the first chance of a legacy for children from London 2012. We now have a second chance. Much has been made of the lack of effective co-ordination across all government departments involved in the need to address levelling-up opportunities for children. Often the problem is not policy effectiveness but a failure to deliver policies efficiently across government. For children, that requires a deep dive into the existing structures, divisional, cross-departmental and in terms of political accountability.
The fundamental problem is that the overlap between departmental responsibilities reflects far-reaching changes in expectation in society, which the structure of departmental responsibilities fails to reflect. Local authorities and partnerships, leisure trusts, local sports clubs, health and care providers, and charities should and must work together. We have never had a unified voice for children and we have never needed it more, so the need for a Secretary of State with explicit responsibility for children is urgent now, to provide essential leadership with the duty to ensure that every policy is assessed through the prism of its impact on children.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her brilliant introduction. It was devastatingly analytical and, at the same time, incredibly positive.
All was not well before Covid-19. Since 2010, the Tory Government have been systematically attacking the poor and disadvantaged of all ages. The single fact that, since 2010, life expectancy has stalled for the first time in over 100 years tells it all. Among other issues, this means that the grandparents of today’s children are not living as long as they would have done before 2010.
The brief from the National Literacy Trust makes the telling point that, before the second and third lockdowns, all year groups had experienced around a two-month reading loss, leading to poor language skills, which impacts on achievements and employment prospects. At five, poor language skills are linked to behavioural and mental health problems in later life. The trust also concludes that
“the link between poverty, educational attainment and basic skills is stronger in England than in any other developed country.”
I ask the Minister why this is.
We have not all been in this together during Covid-19—here I am using Build Back Fairer: The Covid-19 Marmot Review. Has the Minister actually read this?  If not, has anyone in government read it? It is full of questions and answers at the same time. I can touch on only a part of what it points up in early years and education:
“Many early years settings in more deprived areas are at risk of closure and of having to make staff redundant as a result of containment measures”.
Compared to children from wealthier backgrounds,
“More disadvantaged children were disproportionately harmed by closures in the following ways … Greater loss of learning time … Less access to online learning and educational resources … Less access to private tutoring and additional educational materials … Inequalities in the exam grading systems … Children with special educational needs and their families were particularly disadvantaged through school closures … School funding continues to benefit schools in least disadvantaged areas the most—widening educational outcomes”.
There has also been unequal access to laptops and technology, leaving schools in deprived areas less able to provide online learning, with the more deprived students having less space to study at home. These are all specific to Covid-19.
The Tory attack started in 2010. The Marmot Review 10 Years On report makes points about cuts in Sure Start and children’s centres, the
“low rates of pay and … low level of qualification required in the childcare workforce”,
big increases in exclusions from both primary and secondary schools, and that school student numbers have risen but funding per student has decreased by 8% per student. At the same time, there is evidence that it is quite possible to break the link between deprivation and poor early years development.
The severe cuts to school funding in England meant that this did not provide a sound footing to support early years development and educational attainment through Covid-19 lockdowns in an equitable way. That is clear for all to see and has been a theme of all the speeches today. The base was very low before the pandemic.
I was astonished to find out that the UK ranks only 27th out of 38 countries in child well-being on UNICEF report card 16, which ranks OECD countries using just three measures: mental well-being, physical health, and academic and social skills. So the UK was doing badly before Covid-19. It is not an excuse for the post-2010 Tory attack on the poor and least advantaged, but it has made matters worse.
So what should we do? In Build Back Fairer—and we should be concentrating on building back fairer—Marmot lists some recommendations. I conclude with these long-term, medium-term and short-term actions to give every child the best start in life, such as: prioritising reducing inequalities in early years; increasing spending on early years to the OECD average; increasing the pay and qualification requirements for the childcare workforce; additional government support for early years settings; and better access to parenting support programmes.
It was George Osborne who set the style of 2010 cuts on their way, with his slogan not to build social housing because
“it just creates Labour voters”.
I am still looking for the one-nation Tory Government we can work. I cannot see it yet.

Lord Walney: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow that powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I absolutely endorse what he said about Professor Marmot’s review, in particular. It is vital that we pay attention to his analysis and recommendations in this critical debate. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular my work to support and help promote the levelling-up goals that were founded by the former Education Secretary and International Development Secretary, Justine Greening, with whom I served on different Benches in the House of Commons over the last decade.
I add my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Many of my colleagues in the Labour student movement and I admired her greatly when she was Education Minister, during her time serving in the new Labour Government. It is an unexpected privilege to share a debate with her in this House today.
The noble Baroness talked powerfully about the power and central importance of the state, and cast the need for education change and reform in terms of the great changes to the welfare state over the years. That puts in mind exactly how damaging what has happened during the pandemic has been over this last year. Levelling up is a relatively new way of trying to encapsulate what governments, businesses and wider society mean in bringing about these kinds of changes, but the business of state-funded and state-directed universal education has been crucial to a welfare-minded society for 150 years. That has been taken away over much of the last 12 months. Therefore, it is no surprise that this has greatly exacerbated what were already great inequalities in the education system and beyond.
I absolutely endorse the many powerful speeches that have already been made on the need for a greater focus on this challenge than has so far been put forward by the Government. It is not simply in the huge but relatively narrow field of education attainment where we risk falling behind; this has consequences for every field of society and, ultimately, for our ability to defend ourselves, and to create the medical and scientific progress that will be needed in future health crises. It is vital that we raise our game beyond where we are at the moment.
I add one final observation to the speeches already made. As part of the great increase in state activity and focus that has been called for in myriad ways in this debate already, I hope we can also see and be part of encouraging a change in the way that a wider community and wider society, including local and national businesses, view the power of education.
During my time as the MP for Barrow and Furness between 2010 and 2019, I was part of a push for change, with businesses taking greater responsibility for the area’s education outcomes, which in Barrow and many provincial parts of England were lower than the national average. We formed the Future Leaders’ Academy, the summer school funding for which was overwhelmingly provided by local businesses that understood the need to invest in their future workforce from the very earliest ages. So, this is possible.
I challenge what the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said. In deprived areas it is absolutely possible for an  increased contribution from the state to work hand in hand with an increased contribution from businesses to make the changes we need.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: My Lords, I have never forgotten the words of my first education lecturer, a Mr Hinchliffe, who told a room full of eager trainee teachers that we could not walk into a classroom and expect the children’s instant respect but would have to earn it by our words and deeds. It is incumbent on us all now, particularly the Government in the delivery of their policies, to earn the respect of young people and support their health, well-being and education as a major priority as we move out of the pandemic.
This difficult time has emphasised just how important our schools, colleges and universities are for young people. The education workforce has risen to the challenges, demonstrating clearly that teaching is not and never was just another job. It is an honourable profession that I was proud to be dedicated to for over three decades of my working life. I was delighted to experience a sea change in recognition and respect for teachers during the period 1997 to 2010—replacing the leaking roofs of hall buildings, and tackling the one set of textbooks between four classes and the low expectations for our children that were the norm in the 1980s and 1990s.
Then, we had an innovative education policy from a Labour Government under the departmental leadership of my noble friends Lady Morris and Lord Blunkett, among others. I implemented those exciting changes in my classroom and was rewarded with excellent outcomes for our young people, significant pay rises and opportunities for professional development. I never dreamt then that one day, I would be working alongside them in your Lordships’ House. As we have heard already today in my noble friend Lady Morris’s inspirational speech and those of so many of my noble friends, we have magnificent dedication and experience on this side of the House. It could be so invaluable when developing strategy and policy.
Let us thank the teachers and students of today for their dedication, innovation and ability to move to online and blended learning and all the other things they have had to put up with during the pandemic. We must match the ambition that children have for their own futures. We must provide investment and opportunity to back that up. Labour has a Children’s Recovery Plan that would ensure that no child is held back by the Government’s failures to protect learning and well-being. Labour is promising to match children and young people’s ambition for their own futures and to put them at the heart of our national recovery. This goes to the centre of our leader’s vision for the UK to be the best place in which to grow up.
Sadly, this Government have already fallen at the first hurdle and revealed their lack of commitment when their own education recovery tsar resigned. The pandemic exposed deep inequalities in our society—many noble Lords have talked today about poverty—but it did not create them. Poverty, particularly child poverty, has been growing for years on this Government’s watch, and its impacts are shattering. My noble friend  Lord Coaker referred to revisiting a place many years later. He is absolutely right: so little has changed in the last 11 years. In fact, we have gone backwards.
Our plan for the future of young people would deliver breakfast clubs, new activities, quality mental health support and small-group tutoring for those who need it by reforming the Government’s failing tutoring programme. We would introduce an education recovery premium, investing in children to provide support to every child in order to reach their potential. We would double the pupil premium for children in key transition years. Further, we would ensure that no child goes hungry by extending free school meals over the holidays, including the summer holidays. It should not need the campaigning of a remarkable young sportsman to shame the Government into taking such actions.
It is particularly welcome that only yesterday the Welsh Labour Government published their plan for education recovery in Wales, putting learners at the centre of it. It is called Renew and Reform: Supporting Learners’ Wellbeing and Progression, and I recommend it to the Government as essential reading. The Welsh Government are also clear on the types of activity that are important. They will prioritise learner well-being, motivation and confidence as the basis for the development of skills, as well as teacher well-being. Their funding aligns with the allocation of nearly £100 million in support for free school meals over every school holiday, in direct contrast to the lack of funding for English children. The Welsh Labour Government’s pathway will ensure that education builds back better towards reform, as well as developing resilience to future Covid-19 challenges.
I respectfully advise the Secretary of State, as I did in my speech on Tuesday, to call Jeremy Miles MS as soon as possible to discuss and learn how a devolved Labour Government are so much more ambitious for our young people and their education and well-being recovery from the most tumultuous year of their young lives. I have the Minister’s number if Mr Williamson needs to get in touch today.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for the opportunity to have this debate today and for her very persuasive explanation of the issues in her introduction.
I am genuinely puzzled by Treasury attitudes towards catch-up funding. I do not understand why the Treasury opposed the £15 billion levelling-up money recommended for the next three years, instead agreeing to only £1.4 billion for the first year, with the vague suggestion that the forthcoming spending review might allocate more. Why did the Treasury decide not to address the immediate and serious learning loss for so many disadvantaged school pupils? I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to tell us.
The National Audit Office has reported that £372 billion was spent by the Treasury on measures announced between February 2020 and March 2021 to counter the pandemic. That puts into context the comparatively small sum for educational catch-up funding refused by the Treasury. A difficulty with its decision is  that it is not clear what expertise the Treasury has in matters of detailed educational policy. Perhaps it should consult the Education Policy Institute, which has published a fully costed recovery plan for schools amounting to £13.5 billion over three years, based on learning loss.
As it is, there will be extra spending of only £50 a pupil in England, so this summer 90,000 children transferring to secondary school will be significantly behind in basic literacy skills. Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why catch-up funding seems so much higher in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England. The Education Policy Institute reports that spending is around £200 per pupil in Northern Ireland and Scotland and around £300 per pupil in Wales, compared with only £50 in England.
There is a broader issue. The Government’s understanding of levelling up seems to relate primarily to infrastructure funding and investment in places, but surely levelling up also means creating opportunities to level up individuals who suffer disadvantage, many of whom live in those left-behind areas. In the end, success in levelling up will be led by people.
For example, take digital skills. In my home region, the north-east of England, the Office for National Statistics and Ofcom estimate that there are 55,000 families without access to a laptop, tablet or desktop computer at home. We must get all pupils connected from their homes.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that there could be as much as £350 billion in lost lifetime earnings for this generation of schoolchildren, yet there would seem to be long-term benefits to the Treasury if catch-up spending was seen as capital investment because it could generate a return in future tax stream growth. As we have heard, too many children live below the poverty line, of whom half are in working households. Child poverty is rising, as we know from this morning’s announcement on increasing demand for free school meals.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned against a two-tier recovery: those who own their own homes and have a secure income should be fine, and those who rent and have insecure incomes may not be. In this context, the need for social housing is becoming increasingly acute, yet it does not seem to be a government priority. It should be.
In 2019, before the pandemic, pupils from the poorest backgrounds were more than a year behind their fellow pupils, and that gap has been widening because of the pandemic. This is worst disruption to education since the Second World War. Pupils need interventions to close that widening gap. This needs a catch-up recovery plan. For it to be achieved, a will, right across government, for it to happen is essential.

Lord Shinkwin: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to debate such a crucial issue. I agree with her that now is the time to optimise the life chances of children, especially disabled children, and to level up opportunity to ensure equality for their future. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us, we will all benefit if that happens, and we will all pay if it does not.
That is why it is vital that the Prime Minister’s practical commitment to his levelling-up agenda is commensurate with the scale of the challenge. I am thinking in particular of his pledge that his Government would publish
“the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation.”
I chaired the CSJ Disability Commission, which published the blueprint of an oven-ready disability strategy earlier this year, and I thank Oliver Large at the CSJ for his invaluable assistance. The Prime Minister has been good enough to describe the commission’s Now is the Time report as a “tremendous contribution.” In his letter to me, he says,
“You may be reassured of my determination that the National Strategy shall be transformative.”
I regret to say that a subsequent Zoom call with the Minister for Disabled People, in which we discussed aspects of the forthcoming strategy relating to life chances and equality of opportunity in employment, was far less reassuring. Indeed, I do not recall him using the word “transformative” once. There were plenty of references to “very exciting pilot projects”, but nothing about ambitious and transformative change. On the commission’s recommendations, I heard very little to reassure me. Instead, the clear impression was of a department preoccupied with carrying on business as usual, repackaged as a strategy in name only.
I worry that the DWP either does not get it or has not bought into the PM’s vision, because what I heard from the Minister could not have been more different in tone from what the PM is saying. I believe the Prime Minister gets it but, the fact is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, made clear, the life-chances legacy of the pandemic challenge makes his disability plan even more central to the credibility and success of his levelling-up agenda. Indeed, ComRes polling shows that the strategy is viewed by the public as a key test of whether the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda is more than just words.
Disabled people have watched successive Governments produce Green Papers, White Papers and consultations with little to no tangible outcomes, repeating the same work time and time again without any transformation. That is why we have got to seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right because getting the PM’s national strategy for disabled people wrong, as I sadly believe is in danger of happening, would hole his levelling-up agenda below the waterline. I want to reassure the Prime Minister that I will not blame him—indeed, I will thank him—if he delays the disability strategy until he can be confident of its landing well with its primary stakeholder group, disabled people and disabled children.
The Government need to understand that it is we as disabled people who will tell them when we believe we have been listened to, not the other way round. It is vital that the PM’s levelling-up agenda and his promise of equality of opportunity is regarded by disabled people in ways that they can see for themselves as truly delivering on his promise of levelling up.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, I too thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Morris on securing the debate and on the excellence of her opening speech.  I of course wish her a happy birthday, as I do my noble friend Lord Coaker. I do not share a birthday with them, but I share with them many decades of the privilege of working with children and young people in classrooms.
Coronavirus has exposed the reality of child poverty in 2021. Job losses, illness and increased economic pressure have pushed far too many families to the brink, limiting the life chances of millions of children and young people. As others have said, we know that even before the pandemic 4.3 million children and young people were growing up trapped in poverty. Most of those young people—75% of them—were growing up in households where at least one person was working, showing that that work did not provide a route out of poverty. A recent NUT member survey found that more than half the respondents had seen an increase in child poverty at their school or college since March 2020.
Poverty disproportionately impacts children and young people growing up in black or minority-ethnic families, 46% of whom are trapped in poverty, according to the statistics, and 44% of children in lone-parent households are also trapped in the grip of poverty, many with single parents working several jobs to make ends meet. Of course, gender inequality in pay compounds the challenges faced by many families. Research shows that a small but not insignificant effect of family poverty is that one in 10 girls cannot afford menstrual products, with more than 137,000 girls missing school because of period poverty pre-pandemic. Will the Minister consider following the Scottish Government’s lead in providing free period products for girls of school age?
The coronavirus pandemic has increased pressures on low-income families. Virtually all respondents in the NEU members survey reported students with limited or no access to learning resources at home during the months of the pandemic. This is not just laptops—four in five members reported families turning to schools or college for extra support during lockdown for provision of basic resources such as pens, paper and books, hence the £1 million fund set up by the NEU to help at least some children and young people to access those resources. One-fifth of schools in the UK have set up food banks since March 2020 and, of course, as was the case previously, 25% of teachers report that they personally provide food, snacks and so on to their pupils at their own expense. Poverty harms children’s physical health and mental well-being, which undermines their ability to learn, as we have heard from so many speakers.
Even before the pandemic, having poor languages skills at five years of age had an impact on a child’s academic achievement and future prospects. Children who struggle with language at the age of five are nearly six times more likely to be unable to reach the so-called expected standard in English at the age of 11. Children with poor vocabulary at the age of five are four or five times more likely to have reading difficulties in adulthood; it seems that they are also twice as likely to be unemployed by the age of 34. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, the link between poverty and educational attainment, as well as basic skills, is stronger in England than in any other developed  country. The literacy skills gap at the age of five, when children start at primary school, in the most disadvantaged communities is 19 months.
What are we going to do about it? One thing that could be done is this. The Department for Education changed the census used to calculate pupil premium funding from January to October in December 2020. Ministers claim that this is insignificant, that schools are well funded and that the change will have only a temporary impact. However, this change will not just be one-off, because it will permanently remove pupils starting reception in the January intake. It will have a large impact this year because of the number of additional pupils receiving free school meals. This change to how the pupil premium is calculated means that £147 million is being taken away from children most in need. Will the Minister please reconsider that?

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, may I say happy birthday to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and thank her for her powerful and passionate account? I agree that we are a levelled-up generation and we owe a debt of responsibility to future generations. I am immensely grateful to Barnardo’s, the APPG on Homelessness, the Disabled Children’s Partnership, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Literacy Trust. I commend their outstanding and continued leadership and advocacy on behalf of the children of our country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, plainly stated what we know all too well and what needs to be done. Sir Kevan Collins warns us that the successful recovery of children’s education is not credible on the £50 per student extra support. Therefore, the Government will knowingly be abandoning children’s future education.
I was moved by the personal account from the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld. I too witnessed the frustration of my three children who suddenly added teaching to their skill set. I salute all parents, including her, who did everything they could under extreme circumstances.
Some 4.3 million children experienced poverty prior to the Covid pandemic, which has simply worsened it. Barnardo’s had a coalition of 80 charities to deliver “See, Hear, Respond” programmes, which reached 100,000 children who were hidden and suffered a detrimental impact in the past year during the pandemic but did not qualify for statutory support. The Government know about these gaps and shortfalls. Can the Minister say what is being done to follow up on those children and what has happened to them? Furthermore, during the first six months of the pandemic nearly 300,000 children were referred to children’s social services. If the Minister is unable to respond now, will she write to me and put a copy in the Library about the breakdown of the figures, and the types of services provided to that group of children?
I accept that there are many pressures that require immediate government attention to remedy inequality and injustice for all families, who are battling on so many fronts, with a lack of adequate finance and with poor mental well-being caused directly by poverty—and then there is the digital divide, homelessness, sexual abuse, domestic violence, drugs, racism and Islamophobia,  all of which have reached an endemic level in our society and our educational institutions. We ignore them at our children’s peril.
Can the Minister say whether there are adequate independent safeguards in place in schools if and when parents muster the courage to complain about racism and Islamophobia, which have some of the most pernicious impacts on black and ethnic minority children’s well-being? Will the Minister and the rest of the Government also review urgently the divisive and dangerous Prevent and Channel policies, which lately have victimised and penalised young children for their shows of solidarity over international conflicts? It is an absolute outrage, and an act of control on our civil liberty and free speech, which we so value in our country.
Briefly, I want to acknowledge the detailed briefings circulated to us by the Disabled Children’s Partnership. The Government are fully cognisant of the devastating impact of the pandemic on people living with disabilities and autism, as well as on their carers. Pre-pandemic, we had a £434 million deficit in social care for disabled children alone, which has trebled in the past year. I hope that the Minister will heed the wise words and advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.
I urge the Minister to search her own heart and that of the Government, with deepest consciousness, to address the profound pain of families in need of the Government’s urgent attention. Levelling up is impossible without ensuring a fair, just and accountable Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we can change the narrative if the Government are willing to do so. Does the Minister agree that the shortfall in funding for education is indicative of the Government being willing to fail our children’s future?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we have seen the remarkable resilience of children through the pandemic while also seeing the negative impact on their well-being and, in too many cases, their academic progress. We owe it to this next generation to help them to rebound from this pandemic. We know that children respond well and quickly with the proper support and assistance. I have spoken before about the challenge of so many things switching to online during the Covid lockdowns. For many children, schooling was a real struggle, with families sharing one device, often a mobile phone, between them, and many not having wi-fi at home.
This leads me on to talk about the excellent work carried out by the ClementJames Centre, where one of my daughters is a trustee. The ClementJames Centre is a charity operating in North Kensington and now celebrating its 40th anniversary. It helps children and young people to learn and flourish, and achieve their potential through academic support, mentoring, literacy and numeracy support and, in normal years, a very colourful carnival programme in the summer. It works tirelessly with children to help make learning fun and has continued its work throughout lockdown, and at the centre since the return of groups of children has been permitted. The charity has been providing 10 weeks of one-to-one support for either maths or literature and found that in two and a half months, a child can catch up on a year of learning. Obviously, this varies  depending on the year, group and child, but the charity has found that this support has been invaluable in making a real impact on a child’s life, and helping them grow in confidence.
With the summer holidays approaching, there is always that challenge between having a break from schoolwork and studying. Perhaps the ClementJames model is one to be adopted by other organisations this summer. ClementJames has used more volunteers to help, as one-to-one support is labour-intensive. This has the double benefit of helping the children thrive academically while the volunteers have enjoyed helping. One of the most common things, it says, is hearing how children have missed reading. It has been a struggle for the ClementJames Centre to find free access to children’s books when so many of its resources were originally out of bounds in the centre and the libraries were shut.
I have also heard from other sources of children running out of books to read and being desperate to borrow them. I urge the Minister look at whether there is some way to provide more free access to books online for the young to encourage reading at any time. Too often, libraries focus on providing adult literature or resources online, yet being able to read a book for your age group, or hearing an audiobook read by someone else, is a great way to learn without realising it.
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this debate to the House. We have had top-quality contributions, including mention of the two birthdays today. Irrespective of which Benches we sit on, I believe we all want to help the next generation in whatever way is possible.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Morris sat down at the end of her speech, I really wanted to cheer. I could not, because I was on the Woolsack and it really would not have been appropriate. But I want her to know that I wanted to—and I still want to because when she speaks, it is always an inspiration.
As others have said, the Covid-19 crisis has amplified and magnified existing inequalities across and between our communities. Disparities in economic stability, in access to healthcare and in education have widened markedly. Evidence now coming in to your Lordships’ Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, of which I am a member, reveals this pretty consistently. It also reveals rising concern that our national curriculum is not equipping students effectively with the skills they will need to succeed in a fast-changing job market. As I and other noble Lords have said many times, it is too focused on testing what students know at a given moment —when they take an exam—rather than on developing their capacity to learn, which lasts a lifetime.
I wonder whether the Minister has seen the material published recently by Creativity Exchange. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who is not in her place today, for drawing it to my attention. It looked at the national curriculum in Australia, where critical and creative thinking is one of seven general capabilities which include literacy, numeracy and ICT capability,
“each one of which can be embedded in individual subjects or learning areas”.
In the state of Victoria, we are told:
“The State is determined to highlight the important role of critical and creative thinking skills in helping students to build problem solving and evaluation capability, the confidence to question, challenge and establish deeper thinking on topics, concepts, events, beliefs, cultures and society.”
In Victoria, an assessment system has been developed to test how students progress with this creative and critical thinking. These are the skills that employers are crying out for here and do not currently find in our young people. Is it not time for a big rethink of our own narrow and restrictive national curriculum?
Finally, I want to add a bit to what has been said about teachers. The Secretary of State for Education, in a letter he wrote to Members of Parliament on 8 June, said that evidence shows that teachers are the most important in-school factor affecting pupils’ attainment. Well, I never thought that would be the case. Who knew? However, demands on our teachers have become almost unbearable. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, retention is a significant issue, while school leaders have struggled to make sense of constantly changing expectations from government.
Sir Kevan Collins has been referred to many times in this debate. Speaking about school leaders in one of his last public appearances before he was so carelessly cast aside, he told the Youth Unemployment Committee:
“I think it is heroic what they have done for us in the last 18 months, and I worry about Covid fatigue and a backlog of people who might be saying that this is a time to rethink. How we present the recovery will be a big signal to that community and that sector as to whether they lean in”.
My fear is that the crisis he was anticipating is already upon us. Teachers and school leaders are at the sharp end as we try to reverse the damage inflicted by the pandemic. They need support and consistency from the Department for Education in the huge task they have before them, not criticism and disparagement, as is too often the case.
I am sure the Minister will remind us of recruitment drives, improved starting salaries and funding for continuing professional development. These are all great, but what can she say about how the Government will strengthen support for experienced school leaders, who are essential to the delivery of a recovery programme? I fear that many are losing heart, and without them we are lost.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, I give many thanks to my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley for providing the opportunity to debate this crucial issue, which is so important for the future of our society. What a fantastic speech it was: so clear, so heartfelt and so powerful. We simply have no choice but to address the closely linked issues of health, inequality and child poverty and their impact on the future of our children.
In my remarks, I want to focus specifically on children’s mental health as we emerge from the Covid pandemic. There was already cause for concern about child and adolescent mental health prior to the pandemic. A national NHS Digital study in 2017 showed that one in nine children and young people had a probable mental health problem. A follow-up study in July 2020 indicated that this figure had increased to one in six. While it is not clear whether this increase was necessarily  a result of the pandemic or a continuing upward trajectory, there is evidence that the pandemic has had an overall negative effect on children and young peoples’ mental health.
It is important to note that the pandemic has not brought negative consequences for all young people. For example, 25% to 40% of the children and young people surveyed by the Oxford University OxWell study reported that the first lockdown had led them to feel happier. A second large study, by ImpactEd, found that average well-being scores reported by school-age children and adolescents were higher during the first national lockdown, when most children were not at school, than later in the year when they returned to school. But this must not make us complacent, because these results highlight the need better to understand what accounts for the variability in children’s mental health experiences during the pandemic. Why has it affected some children so much worse than others?
Some evidence on this has come from the Oxford University Co-Space study, which has been tracking children and young people’s mental health monthly since March 2020. It found that particular groups have had elevated mental health symptoms throughout the pandemic. The symptoms were worse for those who live in families with low household incomes, those with special educational needs and those whose parents reported high psychological distress, which is closely associated with poverty. Evidence from food banks shows that unexpected poverty arising from the pandemic can be particularly stressful for families.
It is of particular concern that, while the Co-Space study saw an overall improvement in mental health in March 2021 as the restrictions eased, children in special educational needs and in low-income families continued to have high levels of symptoms, suggesting that, while many children and young people will bounce back well after the pandemic, it is much less likely where families face particular challenges such as poverty. A paper published recently in the Journal of Mental Health and supported by Chris Whitty tells us that 75% of mental health problems in adulthood start in childhood or adolescence. It goes on to describe the end goals for mental health research, the first being to break this link by halving the number of children and young people experiencing persistent mental health problems. During the pandemic, these problems have clearly grown. As Professor Cathy Creswell from the University of Oxford said following the Co-Space study, if we are to prevent these problems persisting into adulthood, we need to stop them early.
Getting on top of this makes sense for the children and their families, it makes sense for the NHS by reducing later costs, and it makes sense for the economy, as sufferers could contribute more fully to society.

Lord Bird: I declare my interests as in the register around homelessness, because I would like to bring us to an unsavoury report that I read this morning from the National Residential Landlords Association which says that about 800,000 families in tenancies are behind in their rent. This figure has increased by 82% since we entered the Covid-19 crisis.
Imagine what is going to happen to hundreds of thousands of children if we allow them to slip into homelessness. What will that do to our schools and the problems that are thrown up? These are the kind of figures that are hidden in homelessness. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. At the Big Issue, I worked with 7,000 to 9,000 people and about 12,000 children a year who had gone through homelessness. There are about 120,000 children who live in temporary accommodation and another 90,000 who are living the life of a sofa surfer. Imagine the damage that does to the lives of our children. What are we going to do about that? What are we going to do to stop something happening that has never happened before? Those children were in some ways socially prepared for the laws of unintended consequences because their parents had fallen out of being able to provide for the family. What we have now is hundreds of thousands of families who are not socially prepared. They are not the people who sell the Big Issue; they are the people who read it. We have got this coming down the line.
I am sorry: every time I stand up in this House, I nearly always return to the same problem. When will the Government produce a road map to show that they will make sure that people will not be allowed to slip into homelessness, that children will not be damaged and that the hundreds of thousands will be kept in their homes, looked after in their homes, given social security and have their rent or mortgage paid if they do the right thing? If they slip into homelessness, the costs go up by two or three times. It is much cheaper to keep somebody in their home than to push them into the social treacle of homelessness.
How do we stop hundreds of thousands of children slipping into homelessness, getting depressed, being broken for maybe two generations and taking for ever to get out of it? What we do is convince the Government and the Treasury that it is much cheaper to mend the problem and to put a fence at the top of the hill and not an ambulance at the bottom—because that is what in some ways they are preparing for. They will shift large amounts of money into local authorities so that we can have more and more temporary accommodation. What does temporary accommodation do to a child’s mind? All the questions of education will go out of the window.
I am here once again to remind the Government: please, do this for our children. Stop our children slipping into homelessness and becoming the flotsam and jetsam that whoever is running the Big Issue in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time will have to take on.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley for this timely debate and for her dedication to the well-being of children. As a former teacher, a parent and a grandparent, I am heartened by this debate and by its passion, wisdom, love and energy in respect of children’s rights and well-being. I have wanted to cheer many contributions, but, of course, I have not, because I am too well behaved.
I believe that Covid-19 is a call for urgent action on behalf of children. Many have suffered badly. If we want to address this imbalance, we must act decisively  to take on board the lessons of Covid-19 and develop strategies to improve the lives of children, particularly the most vulnerable. The question I want to ask the Government is: will children be placed at the heart of recovery, and if so, how?
Children have rights as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK in 1991. Articles of the convention apply directly to poverty, education and children’s services. Other articles address the child’s right to be heard, which I shall refer to today. I should declare an interest in that I have recently produced a report for the Council of Europe on Covid-19 and its impact on children’s rights.
We now have a compelling opportunity to re-examine our systems that relate to children and their well-being, discussed by many noble Lords today, and to develop policy and practice. Children’s rights are not about letting children have their own way but about enabling them to develop responsibility for self and others, to engage with systems that affect them, and to be listened to and have their views respected. It is about enabling children to become positive and active members of society and to have the confidence to make a difference.
I wish that I could show a diagram with a picture of a child in the middle and the influences on that child surrounding them—influences such as education, poverty and services. The child is at the centre; we must bear that in mind and ensure that every service that we have for children links with other services and focuses on the child. Children should be consulted about what they want and need from services. They, like all of us, are a mixture of emotional, physical and intellectual capacities, yet we so often divide these capacities into siloes—we do not communicate with each other. We would gain a great deal by asking people to identify their own needs rather than making assumptions about them. We must ask questions of families, communities, professionals, the homeless and children. I remember a workshop on mental health a few years ago where one young woman said, “We are the experts by experience”. We need to ask for and unlock such expertise, and use it to influence policy.
During Covid, children have experienced increased poverty, mental health issues, educational disruption and a lack of access to learning, healthcare, sport, the arts and socialising. When interviewing children with professionals for my Council of Europe report, some said that they had actually enjoyed being locked down because they could plan their lives and their learning and have more contact with family. But these were children from more affluent and settled backgrounds; they were not suffering or observing domestic abuse, and they were not homeless, disabled, suffering from mental health problems, poor, migrants, refugees or young carers. Covid has again emphasised the disparities in our society between children who are in poverty or are otherwise vulnerable and those who are more affluent.
If the Government are serious about levelling up society, they need to urgently and purposefully look at the lives of children and how they can be made better from birth onwards. I know that many of us in this Chamber and beyond think that services for children should be synchronised to be effective. A Cabinet Minister for children is needed, as the noble Lord,  Lord Moynihan, and others have so eloquently said—someone who is dynamic and resourceful and who can pull together the strands of childhood, listen to children, be a force for action across government and develop a national strategy for children. I hope that the Minister will say more about this.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, not just for securing this debate but for introducing it so eloquently. I am sure that all of us, on all sides, were moved by her passion and evident conviction. She is of course right that we have an obligation; it is one of our deepest instincts as a species to want to do things for the young.
I cannot help feeling that these lockdowns have had a real disproportionate impact: they have been asymmetric in their effect, hitting people in the private sector harder than those in the public sector and those in cities harder than those in villages. Above all, they have hit young people harder than middle-aged and elderly people.
I have not been teaching all three of my children during the lockdown, as my noble friend Lady Wyld has. They span or bookend the system: one is in reception and one is in her first year at university. I can see that, in different ways, every one of those cohorts has been negatively impacted, if not for any other reason than the most obvious one, which we are all grimly aware of: time subjectively speeds up as we get older. The 15 months of lockdown are a very different experience when seen through the eyes of my four year-old than through those of his parents’ generation. It is almost difficult for the small children to recall a previous time.
The negative impact on older children relates to a time that cannot be given back. Leaving school is one of the closest things that we have as a society to a collective rite of passage to adulthood—it is not something that you can go back and do a second time round. For two years in a row, that has been permanently lost. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is absolutely right that we should keep a sense of perspective and should not catastrophise: this is not a world war. None the less, from the point of view of the young people themselves, the impact has been pretty awful. If your dream was, say, to captain the school cricket XI and you will never be able to do so, that cannot ever be given back to you.
Young people are quite solipsistic—we all were when we were young. In reading the memoirs of the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I was struck that he talked about being at Oxford during the Second World War and being more upset by failing to be elected president of the Oxford Union than he was by news of the fall of France, which happened to be on the same day. It is a very natural thing for young people to be quite self-centred, and the impact on their lives has been frightful.
Here is the more difficult thing that needs saying. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about ambition, and she was absolutely right. It would be so easy, and I could secure a certain amount of plaudits from all sides, if I just said that we need to spend more money. No one ever shakes their head when you say that—or very few people in this place do. But this is not just  about resources; it is about ambition too. I have been shocked by the gap in ambition between some of the schools that have treated the restrictions as a challenge to overcome and some that have treated them, frankly, as an excuse to do less.
We heard the figures quoted about online teaching. According to the Children’s Commissioner, in the summer term of last year, half of secondary school students and 60% of primary school students got no online teaching at all. This is not a question of resources—once you have installed Zoom or Teams, it is effectively free—it is simply a question of ambition. Although there were exceptions, there was, as we heard, some correlation: generally, the schools that had the least online teaching were the ones whose children could least afford that loss. Of course, there were some schools in very deprived areas that rose to the challenge, and there were some well-off schools that did not, but, as a general rule, there was a pretty unpleasant correlation.
I make that point because, if we are now going to try to make up the lost time, it is about not just budgets but ambition. That means that, if we are serious about putting children first, we have to be prepared to give them priority over some competing interests. It might mean a longer school day or shorter school holidays. I am very struck by the way in which the National Education Union, having campaigned furiously against schools coming back at all and having demanded that everything be done online, started campaigning against online tuition the moment that it was conceded, so that a lesson effectively became just a video and then a PDF worksheet. Imagine if, pre-lockdown, you had gone into a classroom and that had been the style of teaching —would any of us have regarded that as adequate?
We do indeed owe a debt to what Kipling called our “angry and defrauded young”, and we—all of us—need to start paying that debt now. That will mean not just decreeing greater resources but putting in the hours as well.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley for an outstanding speech based on great knowledge and experience; it is one we have had before, but they get better. I offer many congratulations to her on her birthday today. I normally speak on health issues and I was going to, but I decided against it. I look to the Minister to see whether she can make my noble friend Lady Morris have an even happier birthday than she was perhaps expecting.
It has been one-way traffic today, apart from perhaps the last speaker. We talk about ambition and I believe everybody who has spoken has done so with great ambition on behalf of our children. We have gone through what I would describe as the nearest thing to World War II. I was a child of World War II and I came from poverty; I was born in a council house with all the deprivations. I succeeded because I had a  Government in power after the war with ambition and who learned lessons from World War II. Whatever disaster we have, within it there is always a lesson to be learned and a benefit to move us forward. That is what we learned after World War II, but I regret that, the more I look at government policy the more I feel that there is a lack of ambition, particularly in education. That is why I am going to speak on education.
The Prime Minister engaged a man to produce a report for him—a man who is respected, very knowledgeable and would be reasonable with what he produced. People of his stature do not go for the ridiculous; they know what life is like in politics and try to produce something that will solve the problem yet will endeavour, so far as it can, to be containable and acceptable to the Government in power. I regret that the Prime Minister has socially distanced himself from children in his response.
I regret too that the Treasury seems to be in a different place from where it should be, given the problems we face and the difficulties we have to try to resolve through money. It is not all money, that is true, but the Government concede already that more money is needed. The argument is now about the scale of it and, on balance, they have got it wrong. I therefore hope that the Minister will particularly address the remarks made by my noble friend: “It is not enough.” If we do not get more, our children will fall further and further behind.
I believe that when the Minister speaks to this House she generally endeavours to build on a foundation of working together. Again, that was what my noble friend called for. Let us join together, if we can, to try to find the way forward. I am not given to engaging in party politics; sometimes my noble friends tell me that I am not tough enough in my criticism. I do not engage in class conflict but I sometimes feel that a degree of class conflict arises when we look at education, and at the background of some individuals, where they have been educated and the cost of their education. Then I see others with my origins and from whence I come: those from council estates and deprived areas, the underprivileged and people with ill health, which we have to address. We need to have a different view.
I urge the Minister to try to be as constructive as she can in replying, to build on a foundation across the House and perhaps undertake not just to go back her department but to get a message to the Prime Minister that he needs to think again. There is an impression that, in certain areas, privilege counts, and those without it fall further behind. Covid has exposed that without any doubt in so many areas, but particularly in education. I hope the Minister will respond as positively as she can to make a happier birthday for my noble friend Lady Morris.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for securing this debate and for her immensely powerful introduction to it. I particularly applaud her positivism in speaking about the young people of today as a great generation. That is what I see in many of my contacts with them, from the climate strikers of Bristol, Sheffield and beyond, to the school and college pupils I meet through “Learn with the Lords”.
I saw it this morning as I opened Broomhill Library’s restored historic rock garden. Hard work from young people, ranging from local infants classes to the students of Freeman College and the landscape design students at the University of Sheffield, has contributed to restoring a historic design by Percy Cane and creating a biodiverse, rich environment that will be a great asset to public well-being in Sheffield. It is a demonstration of the power of community, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred.
But there is no doubt that this generation faces unique challenges pre-dating the pandemic, which has highlighted and amplified their effects but did not create them. Many young people I meet are understandably acutely anxious about the climate emergency and the nature crisis, but they also have a profound sense of the brokenness of our society and its deep inequality—which means inadequacy of income and wealth, poverty, and the inability of millions, particularly children, to access basic needs for a decent life.
There is also a deep poverty in the quality of life. Lives are not so obviously grey as they were in Victorian mill cities, but millions of our young are trapped in austerity-wracked communities of closed libraries and cancelled bus services, with their housing overcrowded and falling apart, their air filthy and parks uncared for. That is an indictment of past political decisions over decades.
I was tempted to focus my speech on that, but my visit this morning made me decide instead to focus on positive possibilities—directions we are not now taking that we should. The post Covid-19 recovery for young people has to start with an education system that prepares students for a truly healthy, fulfilling life, not just for exams, and one that is not measured by the income those students later collect, for we all know that income level bears no relationship to the value of the individual’s contribution to society. It involves an education that allows for creative possibilities. The tremendous energy and enthusiasm of even the youngest children is all too often squeezed out of them by the world of poverty and inequality, and the rigidity and mindless routine forced into their schools by government diktat.
We can draw inspiration from Broomhill. Education should involve being out in the open air as standard every day, in contact with soils, plants and wildlife, which we know is great for everyone’s health, but particularly children’s. There should be a right to nature, and green space—ideally a wild space—near every home. Education should involve contact with and being surrounded by art and history. Why is there so little public art in the UK, not just in major city squares but in every suburb, village or every telecoms box, as in parts of Sheffield? Why do this Government seem to be doing everything they can to discourage such subjects at secondary and tertiary level?
Perhaps most importantly of all, education should involve control, which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, just referred to: knowing that you can make decisions about your own life, follow your own dreams and take your talents where you will. That is something that should start young, in school, with pupils having far more say individually and collectively over their own  learning. That is what the young people involved in the Broomhill garden did; they co-produced it with the experts and their community.
I come back to the anxiety about the climate emergency, the nature crisis, and poverty and inequality. Concerned about encountering it so often, I once spoke to a psychologist about my instinctive reaction to it: that empowerment was crucial to giving people the tools to tackle it. The psychologist agreed. The reality of our society—our state of economic, social, environmental and political chaos—cannot be hidden from young people. They see it, feel it and taste it every day of their lives. They know that previous generations have failed. They have the energy, ideas and capacity to work with all of us, if we just allow them the resources and freedom to act. None of us in your Lordships’ House know what it is to be a 10 or 16 year-old today; they are the experts on their own lives. We have to give them control over their own futures.
There is said to be a Chinese proverb about the curse of living in interesting times. To adapt it, I would say that the young are cursed, by decades of disastrous decisions, to be forced to be a great generation. Radical change is a certainty; it is in all of our hands that it is in the right direction.

Lord Jones: I thank my noble friend Lady Morris, for her debate and acknowledge the conviction and rightness of her remarks, and in the true voice of the great city of Manchester. I served in three Administrations alongside two Morris brothers in another place, a father and an uncle to the noble Baroness, and very fine advocates for the city of Manchester.
The great William Gladstone, the people’s William, on the passage of a franchise Bill was heard to say: “We must now educate our masters”, but left-behind communities remain, despite all the national treasure expended by all Governments since 1945. Unsuccessful schools, bad health, inequality, poverty, Covid—the heartfelt speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, tells us how far we still have to go. A generation ago, the late, wise, noble Lord Dahrendorf, he of the London School of Economics, used the descriptive phrase, “the underclass”. That unwoke phrase is not deployed today, but it carried a chilling truth. My noble friend Lady Morris, in more human terms, has described a large distressed segment of British society.
At the Downing Street lectern, the incoming Premier, Mrs Theresa May, made a compelling speech of sincerity. One of her phrases told of her concern for those “just getting by”, a noble sentiment, and this debate over- whelmingly concerns those young people in the homes of those just getting by. This describes many millions of our fellow citizens, but what of those who are not getting by? We know the answer. Many tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are not getting by.
RA Butler’s Education Act 1944 envisaged secondary technical schools but they did not happen. Tony Crosland, he of The Future of Socialism, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pretty well eliminated the grammar schools without improving much else. Our polytechnics, technically oriented, sought university status and arguably took their eye off the skills and apprenticeship world.  Female entry into industrial apprenticeships is far from equal—an imbalance to be tackled. I think the key is the teacher and the lecturer if we want children and young adults to make their way. We underrate, underpay and misunderstand the teacher. We need more teachers.
As a class teacher, I realised that if you strain the children, you strain the teachers. The teacher who gives her all throughout lesson times is exhausted when the final bell rings. As a young Minister with an education portfolio, I noted that the LEA’s older, besuited councillor type was keenest on the fortunes of the most able. As an FE lecturer, I taught aerospace apprentices and saw their responses to practical challenges. They thrived on the vocational. The diligent, positive Select Committee chair, Robert Halfon MP, is surely right to call for more vocational curriculums. It is a very positive move for the Times newspaper to set up an education commission, and surely the respected Rachel Sylvester, as chair, will deliver a helpful, decisive compass for action. Tony Blair’s recently delivered speech referred to the many forgotten towns and communities. He made helpful suggestions concerning new universities in the north. There is a way forward.
To conclude, we live in an alarmingly unequal society —indeed, one of rapidly increasing inequality. At a time when most of us live in homes of promise and prosperity, or homes of great prosperity and much possession, it is all so unequal, so very unjust, that it is now a challenge to British statecraft.

Lord Winston: My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to Norton, the internet security company, on children’s security with software during the pandemic. My wife is involved with PaJeS, the association of Jewish schools, which has a very large number of pupils, particular in Liverpool, Manchester and London. I also work on outreach with Imperial College, where I champion visits to various schools. As I tried to tell the noble Baroness during the Queen’s Speech debate—I think she was not in the Chamber at the time—I have spoken to more than 50,000 schoolchildren over the year during my visits.
Unfortunately, I felt a mixture of sadness and almost anger when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. The schools I visit, in coastal districts and parts of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, the West Country, the north-east and the north-west of England do not have a cricket pitch and they certainly do not have a captain of cricket. What they have is something very much more valuable—they still have potential. It is not a question of ambition; it is a question of aspiration. They have ambition, but they do not have aspiration, because they do not see the aspiration possible. That has been a real problem during the pandemic.
The problems we face in schools include, first, the limitation of social interaction, which has been a really important issue. The loss of learning has led to teenagers worrying that they have fallen behind. That is particularly true, of course, before the teens, with very young children who have stopped managing to see their friends, perhaps for the first time. For some children, that has made a very big difference to their  psychology. Of course, with teenagers, to come back to what my noble friend Lady Blower said, it is not a question of cricket; it is about not being able to purchase sanitary equipment for the beginning of their becoming women, when they are probably most embarrassed. There is clearly a significant increase in mental health problems during GCSE and at A-level at the moment in schools. Teachers are telling me that a great deal.
Secondly, the loss of learning has had a varied impact. It has not been at all consistent across the country, but what is a problem is how uncertainty has affected children’s aspiration. Little things such as wearing masks and washing hands before meals, and the need for teachers to organise that, has been a massive burden, which is often not recognised. The behaviour and attitude in schools is also therefore part of that and that has been reflected in the health concerns of staff and parents, and in what is happening at home and during travel.
I want to emphasise that perhaps not enough has been said about the well-being of teachers, particularly heads of schools. It is critical that something is done to recognise that this is an enormous issue. The UK has celebrated the dedication of NHS workers in an extraordinary way. We have poured money into the health service. But look at schools: they have been almost totally ignored and their leaders have been ignored. We have gone out in the streets to clap the NHS workers; we do not clap our teachers and it is something we need to think about. We need to value teachers above all. It is a very important profession. We risk the loss of staff and we know that many head teachers are beginning to give up that job.
I have a suggestion for the noble Baroness, for whom I have great respect. She has a serious concern for the difficult job she has to do and I really appreciate that. Everything I have seen of her ever since she entered this House, and now as a Minister, I find very impressive, so I hope she will understand that we need, much as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, to find solutions together. First, we need to find additional funding. There is no alternative to that. It is needed to support the well-being of students and teachers and to help many schools. The greatest impact on learning would be to fund additional staff to enable smaller classes, especially in core subjects.
It has been suggested today that we should have longer school days, and perhaps even extended terms. That would be a disaster. It is not what teachers want. I have not found a single head teacher who agrees with that proposal. They do not see it as an advantage, because they think that schoolchildren are already exhausted and that is something they want to avoid. For secondary schools, a first good step by the Government would be to limit payments to the exam boards for assessments that the schools are now doing and ring-fence the money saved for additional support.
We need to think about examinations very carefully. Of course, we cannot do without A-levels in the present structure because of the need for further education and higher education. However, I do not see the value of GCSEs at the present time. Why do we need them at the moment, when schools are under massive pressure  and are suddenly being asked to follow a curriculum that is constantly changing, as has already been mentioned? It is not reasonable.
Finally, I want quickly to ask some specific questions.

Baroness Penn: I am afraid that the noble Lord is over the time limit, which is five minutes for this debate.

Lord Winston: I am about to come to my final sentence, if I may. Simply, what support is being given to improving virtual learning in schools? I have many questions about that. I have already sent the Minister my comments in a note, so I hope she can answer my questions. I will write to her again asking for the answers.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, we have heard some 30 contributions today. Instead of reading out my intended speech, which could be repetitive, I wish to say that the pandemic is not only a health problem; it is also about children’s education and futures.
Three years of closedown will affect the future of schoolchildren. It is difficult to forecast the long-term effect of this pandemic era. My prayers are that children will be able to overcome this disadvantage and reach the other shore successfully.

Lord Woodley: I thank Estelle, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, although she is not here at the moment. What a wonderful introduction and contribution.
With more than 500,000 under-25s presently unemployed, we have a duty to act now for those individuals and for our country. Of course we do. In my view, an important way of levelling up opportunities for children—in particular furthering their skills and helping to eliminate inequality and child poverty—is reinvesting in our manufacturing industry, which different Governments have allowed to wither on the vine for many years.
Today’s announcement that Vauxhall is offering new product for my plant at Ellesmere Port is potentially great news not only for the workers whose jobs could be at risk, but for the children of those workers and of workers in the vast supply chains that depend on the continued existence of this and other like-minded plants. They will have the chance to acquire useful skills, serve apprenticeships, obtain well-paid jobs and have a future with dignity. In fact, noble Lords may be surprised to know that, through the sports and social club at this one plant, of which I am chairman, 40,000 children—including boys and girls from the age of five upwards—are given sporting activities in just one year. It helps their mental well-being.
Will the Minister join me in calling for a positive strategy to revive not merely the British car industry, which is crying out for investment, but British manufacturing generally and green manufacturing in particular? Every country depends on what it makes. We have a brilliant workforce with all the necessary skills. What we need is a Government committed to investing in it and supporting British manufacturers. This is one way to ensure that children acquire useful training and skills and eliminate inequality and child poverty.
Friends, in my town, my son is a third-generation car worker. He is just about to become a father. I want to make sure that there is a future for this plant and other plants. With that in mind, I thank the House—both Houses, actually—for the tremendous support given in recent times to encourage investment in this plant. On behalf of my town and my family, thank you very much, everybody.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.

Baroness Thornton: I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morris on her wonderful introduction to this important and pertinent debate. Of course, I also send birthday greetings to both her and Vernon, my noble friend Lord Coaker.
On the first day of our being able to go out, 9 April, I took my seven year-old granddaughter to the Hampton Court Palace Magic Garden—I can heartily recommend it as a wonderful day out to all parents, grandparents, would-be parents and would-be grandparents—to meet her cousins, whom she had not seen for a year. I was captivated by a two year-old. I watched her staring in wonder and joy at other children, and occasionally reaching out to prod one who came close by her. Her parents explained that this was the first time she had been in the company of other children for a year and she was too young to remember the last time.
Echoing the remarks of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I thought of all the babies, children and young people who might have forgotten how to play or socialise and have not had the chance to learn over this pandemic. I also thought of all the children and young people who have not been at school with their mates, and of the damage to their mental health, well-being and learning. The mental health of our children and young people will be the subject of my brief remarks today.
I thank YoungMinds and other organisations for their excellent briefings, not only for today but over many years and certainly over the past year. It is important to state from the outset that the crisis in young people’s mental health predates the pandemic. I have a feeling that the Government are attempting to disguise the fact that many of our health and public services were starved and on their knees before we went into the pandemic, and will blame the pandemic, which undoubtedly made things worse, for the short- comings and shortfalls facing us today. The reality is that child and adolescent mental health services were not expanding fast enough to reach pre-pandemic levels of need, let alone current levels.
The former Children’s Commissioner said in her 2021 annual report that, of the over half a million children and young people referred to CAMHS in 2019-20, 350,000 had their referral closed or were still on a waiting list by the end of the reporting period. Waiting months to help a child is just cruel. NHS Providers found that two-thirds of trust leaders said they are “unable to meet demand” for CAMHS, and every leader surveyed stated that demand for children and young people services is much higher now compared to last year.
All the research shows that things are getting worse for our children and young people. For example, in 2017, suicide was the most common cause of death among boys and girls aged between five and 19, at 16% and 13.3% respectively. We do not know the figures for the past year, but I suspect they will show that those rates have not improved.
NHS Digital research reports that, during lockdown, children and young people may be experiencing anxiety, behavioural problems or increased conflict at home. New research has found that 54% of children and young people with a mental disorder said that lockdown has made their life worse. Parents of children with a mental disorder also reported that their child was more likely to be worried about catching Covid-19, or their family and friends catching it. Some young people have been adversely affected by traumatic experiences, including bereavement, social isolation, a loss of routine, uncertainty about their futures and a breakdown in formal and informal support structures. There has also been an increase in domestic violence. So, we have another pandemic before us: that affecting children’s mental health. There is an urgent need for investment. How much will the Government invest in children and young people’s mental health?
I ask the Minister: will the Government support the creation of early hubs, as suggested by YoungMinds in partnership with a range of children’s mental health organisations? They are calling for a national rollout of early support hub models which would ensure that young people in every area across England could access early support for their mental health. We need to train the workforce. We need to invest in the delivery of early support. That is why the Labour Party announced a children’s recovery plan.
In conclusion, we all accepted the parity of esteem for mental health many years ago. We are a long way from realising it. Surely we need to ensure that the well-being and mental health of our children and young people has to be even more of a priority today than it was two or three years ago. Are this Government prepared to deliver the investment and policy to make that happen?

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Thornton. I congratulate and commend my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley on her well-argued and well-documented speech, and I wish her and my noble friend from the other place who is now here, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, very happy birthdays.
This is a timely debate, considering the levels of deprivation and poverty throughout many parts of the UK, which have deepened, and considering that lives have become tougher for many people as a result of the pandemic, not least those of children and young people. They have had to do their schoolwork, their play and recreation in totally different ways. Lest we be in any doubt, young people and children depend on social interaction, whether in their family, their community or with their friends. In the last 14 months, that has been sadly lacking for many young people.
Young people have been affected greatly, particularly regarding education, health and ever-expanding inequality. I want to focus on health, well-being and the needs of young people and children, and to ascertain from the Minister how the Government will address the requirements of this group. If the Government are serious about levelling up, in the context of Northern Ireland, where waiting lists for various types of health appointments, and waiting lists generally, are much higher than in other parts of the UK, there needs to be a UK-wide strategy for young people in order to deal with those waiting lists and in particular illnesses in the mental health sphere, and to ensure that we can all deal with those issues on that UK-wide basis.
Throughout the course of this pandemic, young people have seen, on average, a generally declining state of happiness as they have experienced greater negative impacts on their mental health and well-being—a point that has already been referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. That is perhaps because of that increased amount of isolation and lack of social interaction. This also seems to be having an on-average higher impact on females, those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special educational needs or pre-existing mental health needs.
As already referenced, YoungMinds conducted a survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of young people aged 13-25 who had, at some point in their lives, reached out for mental health support. The survey of 2,438 young people found that: 75% found the most recent lockdown harder to cope with; 67% thought the pandemic would have long-term negative effects on their mental health; and 79% believed their mental health would start to improve once the restrictions were lifted. We know that things are more complex and complicated than that. The Government should be focused on reviewing, building up and reforming the mental health support available in schools. I do not believe what we currently have is capable of handling a rebuilding of young people’s mental health.
In conclusion, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that private local mental health charities that people depend on survive the economic hardships of the pandemic. Could the Minister indicate what assistance and support the Government will give them to do just that? I am in no doubt that the Government should be focused on ensuring the building up of local mental health charities and support groups, as local groups have a better ability to assess and understand the case-by-case situation of young people struggling with mental health.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers on these issues.

Lord Alderdice: The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying, and a patron of the Traveller Movement.
I wish a happy birthday to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I offer many congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on securing this wide-ranging and important debate and for her wonderful introduction. She was right to say that Covid’s effect on children is not a competition; many others have been severely affected by it through health, wealth or disruption to the public services they receive. But we, this adult generation, hold our country and our world in stewardship for future generations—something we are not too good at, as they rightly often remind us. The support that our children get today to help them to catch up with their wealthier, healthier counterparts is vital, and this Government have a heavy responsibility to bear. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower—how good it is to have her expertise in your Lordships’ House—reminded us that 4 million children and young people are trapped in poverty and that these numbers have and will increase during the pandemic.
We have heard from others about the problems of schooling during lockdown—whether it is the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, of home schooling her daughters, or the Minister’s announcements of free laptops not matching the reality across the country—and about the extraordinary dedication of our teachers and school staff, who ensured that children were taught online while at the same time preparing to reopen under complex, constantly changing, strict guidelines that often were not appropriate for their school settings. From these Benches, we also note that the Government had to be embarrassed by Marcus Rashford into providing school meals during the holidays and that school staff also got food and support right to the front doors of these extremely vulnerable children during lockdown. This went well above and beyond their staff responsibilities, and we salute them. Can the Minister say whether the lessons, cross-department, have been learned from the clumsy mishandling of support to the poorest people and their children, and that it will never happen again? The best way of thanking these school staff and governors is to ensure that these problems are never repeated.
The Department for Education’s recovery plan was shot down in flames within 24 hours of the funding announcement with the shock resignation of Sir Kevan Collins. The well-respected education recovery tsar rightly said that a fund that provided only 10% of the amount he estimated is needed for levelling up again is no fund. It spoke volumes about the Government’s commitment to their manifesto promise of helping the poorest children in the most disadvantaged areas—and not in a good way. As bank managers used to say about bad cheques, the words and the figures do not agree. I echo my noble friend Lady Garden’s demand for fewer words and more action, right now.
My noble friend Lord Shipley reminded us of the National Audit Office view of the Department for Education’s proposed catch-up funds, as well as other areas of unequal support—especially those in left-behind areas. He also wisely proposed that catch-up spending should be regarded as capital, not revenue spending, because of the long-term benefits to our economy, as today’s beneficiaries become the drivers of our future economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, both talked about the specific difficulties faced by disabled children and young people. During a Question earlier this week, I asked the Minister if she would ensure that specialist catch-up funding for these children, as outlined by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, will include speech and language therapy, and physical and occupational therapy, which they have missed for a year. They provide the most vital bedrock of opportunity for such children to be able just to communicate, to learn and to play. To suggest that money is available in a general fund is not good enough. Unless there is specific funding, and the £400 million for the social care support needs of these children, it will never be a top priority. Those of us who live with disabilities have learned that support is always at the back end of the queue, and rarely are there funds left to help these children.
There is an urgent need for children with major underlying health conditions to have access to delayed operations and procedures as soon as possible. Waiting for these interventions often prevents them being able to participate in school and in society. There is also a backlog of the minor surgery and health appointments that are key to very young children being able to learn. Those with, for example, glue ear, who find communication difficult in class, will be held back until they are treated. This must be a priority.
One good piece of news is that evidence of in-person bullying has reduced, which is perhaps not surprising with lengthy lockdowns. But unfortunately this is balanced by evidence of cyberbullying, especially pressuring young people to take inappropriate photos of themselves which are then widely circulated online, which shows the threat of cyberbullying.
In this, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was right to remind us of the particular problems that GRT children face, not only in education but in discrimination. A pre-pandemic joint meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and on Bullying heard evidence not just of GRT children being bullied by other pupils but, shockingly, bullied by their teachers too. GRT children and adults already face extreme inequalities and this needs to be remedied, including the education of some professionals who should know better and be there to help them.
My noble friends Lady Garden and Lady Tyler, as well as other Peers, both talked about the vital importance of properly funding early years, whether in more formal settings, such as nurseries and reception classes, or childcare support for parents. Early years support must form a central plank of the Government’s Covid recovery and afterwards. It is vital if levelling up is to happen. I hope that the Minister can explain why some parents who do not earn enough are not eligible for childcare funds. All the evidence from the OECD shows that early years support for children from the most deprived backgrounds is the best start for them in their lives. It puts them on an almost equal footing with other children, and that has consequences for their qualifications at 16, 18 and at 21, as well as for their careers and their health and well-being as adults. Any Government who speak of levelling up should be investing in services from birth onwards.
Will the Government also reverse the cuts in health visitors, community nurses and, critically, school nurses? We must put investment back into these services. Can I ask the Minister if there are plans to remedy these changes, which are affecting too many disadvantaged children?
My noble friend Lady Garden also spoke of the need for extended schools programmes. Any catch-up needs to look beyond the essential but narrow academic tutoring that is provided in the Covid recovery plan. Music, dance, drama, art and sport give children confidence and essential life skills, and are life-affirming —and make them very employable.
Although we are told that many children do not get Covid, or if they do it is asymptomatic, some do get it, and an increasing number appear to have long Covid, with neurological, cardiac and lung problems. It is good that the NHS is opening so many long Covid clinics, but schools often do not understand it. Can the Minister ensure that schools are given briefings on how to help children with long Covid and remind them of their responsibilities, as set out the in Government’s statutory guidance on supporting children with medical conditions in school, which tells schools that they must follow the advice of doctors and not come to their own decisions about a child’s illness?
That goes also for a small number of children who are clinically extremely vulnerable and have had to shield since last March. There are others who are young carers for parents or family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and they still have to be extremely careful. I am sorry to say that some schools, local authorities and even Ministers have not understood the risk that these children and their families face, and they are not following NHS advice either. Some parents have even been fined for the non-attendance of their child who is shielding. Can the Minister ensure that schools are told how to support these children who have to continue to shield despite vaccinations and despite lockdown lifting?
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly talked about the role of the office for health promotion, which should have children’s health at its heart, including funding to local authorities for swimming pools and other sports and leisure facilities to encourage our children to learn good habits early.
My noble friend Lady Tyler talked, as did others, about the problems in children’s mental health. In coalition we set in legislation parity of esteem for mental health, but, six years on, we are still far from that happening.
The summary by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, of the shocking evidence on child poverty should give the Government pause for thought. They cannot level up without providing support to those children in the poorest families. She is right that the Government must will the means, because without it they will not achieve levelling-up targets.
It is not just about benefits. My noble friend Lady Tyler referred to today’s report on current arrangements for children’s social care work, which now focuses principally only on emergency actions, not on family support and intervention to prevent children being  removed from their families. As she said, there needs to be a statutory duty on agencies to provide support and early intervention, with the appropriate funding. What priority will this get in the spending review?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was right to say that the two-child limit on child benefit needs to be scrapped. The families eligible to claim child benefit desperately need the funding, and the decision keeps children in poverty.
While everyone was relieved that the £20 a week cut to universal credit was delayed, it is still likely to happen later this year. The Prime Minister, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must understand that any refusal to cancel the cut permanently will once again demonstrate a mismatch between their words and their figures. The cut will hit 6 million people, 38% of whom already have a job, and another 40% of whom are seeking one, and it will plunge further thousands into poverty.
Much of this debate has focused on problems but I want to end on a positive note. I watch the children in my family and I see hope, love and ambition. I see care for others and a renewed understanding of the importance of family, even after months in lockdown. So many people need extra help following the pandemic, so please will the Government ensure that their actions mirror their words? As Nelson Mandela said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lady Morris for sponsoring this debate and for opening it so passionately and powerfully. I think she has inspired many of the subsequent speakers, because there really has been a high standard of contribution today, including from the Benches opposite. But I have to say that fewer than one-quarter of the speakers were from the governing party, and it will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that, with one exception—there always has to be an outlier, I suppose—the speeches were if not outright critical then certainly not very supportive of what the Government have done thus far for children in the time of the pandemic.
The pandemic exposed deep inequalities in our society, but of course it did not create them, as many noble Lords have said. Child poverty was rising before the pandemic and is set to rise further still. The figures on child poverty have been well referenced and I will not repeat them, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock referenced working poverty, which is in itself a shocking term. For the figure of those classified as being in poverty to encompass 31% of all children in one of the richest countries in the world is nothing short of a national disgrace. And yet it seems the Government just do not really get it.
The Child Poverty Commission was founded in 2010; in 2012, it became the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. In 2016, “Child Poverty” was dropped from the title. I do not like the term “social mobility”, which suggests that the status quo is somehow tolerable providing that a few people manage to clamber up the ladder a level or two. I prefer “social justice”,  which is much more meaningful and a much greater prize if it can be achieved. However, it can stem only from ambition, something which the Government certainly do not have enough of. The impact of poverty on children is well documented. Those from low-income families are much more likely to experience poorer physical and mental health, do less well in school and have fewer social and economic opportunities in the future. The charity Action for Children, one of many children’s charities which sent noble Lords excellent briefings in advance of this debate, established a coronavirus emergency fund. The families which it helped revealed that over one-third of households were experiencing financial pressures due to the increased costs of the pandemic, two-fifths were struggling to feed their children and one-third needed resources for children’s learning and play.
Even when forced to reckon with the scale of child poverty in this country, it seems that the Government are not inclined to help. They did everything they could to avoid providing meals for children outside the school term—in the midst of a pandemic. Even now, the Government’s free school meal plans will cover only 16 of 30 weekdays during the summer. More recently, the DfE changed the way that the pupil premium is calculated, clawing back hundreds of millions of pounds of school funding from the children who need it most. As my noble friend Lady Blower said, this is not a one-off hit for schools as the Government claim; it will come back next year and the year after. Labour’s shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, had to fight tooth and nail to stop the Government cancelling the £20 uplift to universal credit. Even now, the Chancellor is still insisting that the uplift must be scrapped in the autumn, despite the evidence that this will plunge hundreds of thousands more into poverty.
We need to look at urgent support to allow our children to process the events of the past year and to bounce back from them, such as quality, accessible mental health provision and longer-term goals, giving them optimism for what they can achieve in the future. That is why Labour is supporting the National Education Union’s No Child Left Behind campaign on child poverty, to which several noble Lords referred. This needs to be a cross-government effort, recognising the challenge that our children are facing, the opportunities they deserve and the huge potential they have.
The pandemic forced the education system to transform overnight. Schools had to close their doors to the vast majority of children and provide remote learning to millions of pupils. It was pleasing—indeed encouraging —to see the extent to which leaders, teachers, parents and children rose to that challenge. I must mention the reference by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds to his 10 year-old grandson. I certainly recognise the difficulties that he had. I have a 10 year-old, but he is a son not a grandson, so I am not able to go home at the end of the day and reflect on what I have had to do, or have not done. It is very much the blind being led by the enlightened. I am reminded of someone who sees a person out with a great big dog and asks who is taking who for a walk. That question could be asked in much the same way when it comes to me giving my son home tuition.
This enormous effort by everybody connected with education took place almost despite the Government, and that should be a source of shame. Over the course of the pandemic, the Conservatives seem to have treated the nation’s children as an afterthought, consistently failing to safeguard their well-being and learning. They caused chaos and additional stress for A-level, GCSE and BTEC pupils last summer and then failed to put a plan in place for this year’s exams until only weeks before they were due to go ahead. As noble Lords have heard, over 1 million children were left without adequate access to an electronic device for months, unable to take part in remote learning. In contrast, Labour’s vision is to make Britain the best place to grow up, by prioritising children’s well-being, education and life chances. On Tuesday, noble Lords discussed the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. If our young people are to have not just the opportunity to develop the skills for the economy of the future but the ability to do so, the building blocks need to be put in place now. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, that will not happen under the present narrow national curriculum. I regret having to say to her—I am sure she is aware of it anyway—that the problem will intensify if the Government’s plans to restructure initial teacher training on the basis of political ideology come to fruition. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, many of us will meet that threat head-on.
Noble Lords will have received the briefing paper from the Child Poverty Action Group. The package of measures set out by shadow Secretary of State Kate Green two weeks ago very much echoes those plans for extended schools, where services are delivered that go beyond the core function of a classroom education for children within the normal school day. Schools need to be given the resources to provide every child with new opportunities to socialise, learn and develop post-pandemic working to reverse the widening gap in learning. With extra-curricular activities, mental health support in schools and small-group teaching available to all pupils who will benefit, Labour’s plans prioritise children’s well-being and social development as an essential part of supporting learning. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, there is an urgent need for quality mental health support in every school, with every child having access to qualified in-school counselling staff, alongside boosting well-being through extra activities and an education recovery premium which supports children who faced the greatest disruption during the pandemic, from early years through to further education.
Unlike this Government, the Government of Wales yesterday announced plans that appreciate the magnitude of the problem, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. I certainly hope that this Government follow the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Andrews to do what it takes to bring Sir Kevan Collins back. Yes, it would mean providing the resources he called for, but it would be a sign that the Government really were committed to being bold, to use a term the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. The Government are showing a lack of ambition for our children’s futures. Lockdown conditions had an undeniable effect on children and young people’s social and emotional well-being, as the charity YoungMinds found out that we have now increased from one in nine children with  mental health problems to one in six—and that situation is only going to deteriorate. That is why its advocacy of early support hubs is an interesting idea. These would offer easy-to-access drop-in support on a self-referral basis for young people who do not meet the threshold for children and young people’s mental health services, or with emerging mental health needs, right up to the age of 25.
As I said, too often children seem to have been an afterthought for this Government. Children need to be at the centre of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, supported by a Minister for Children with the right to attend Cabinet and a cross-government strategy which should include early support for the many families who have struggled to access the support they need, especially new parents.
There has been a rise in the number of children entering care due to the increased pressure on families during lockdown and, sadly, a rise in abuse and neglect. Children who have been in local authority care generally have poorer outcomes than their peers, and they are often faced with a cliff edge at the age of 18 as support drops off, but it can be even younger. We have argued against and remain extremely concerned that recent regulations continue to allow the use of unregulated accommodation for looked-after children aged 16 and 17. We would expect far better for our own children, so surely we must demand better for children looked after by the state.
The first report of the government-funded review into children’s social care was published today, as has been referenced by noble Lords. It contains a basic contradiction, however, highlighting the fact that England’s children’s social services are under significant financial pressure” after what the report describes as years of cuts, during which council-run family support services have been reduced by a third. But it then claims that funding has barely kept pace with demand for children’s social care over the past decade. The truth is that it has not kept pace at all, and unless the review eventually recommends significant additional resources, the cuts to services that it correctly identifies will not be reversed.
As my noble friend Lady Andrews said, early years is a crucial time in children’s development, yet earlier this week we had the shocking announcement of a systematic and deliberate underfunding of early years childcare in the education sector by the Government. That was revealed in a report by the Early Years Alliance, which had to use the Freedom of Information Act to receive that information. It is not surprising that the Government fought for two years to block it.
These findings are truly shocking and make the need for an independent review of child care affordability and funding all the more urgent. Research shows that investment in early years education saves the Exchequer money in the long run. The Government’s short-sighted funding decisions affect the life chances not only of children but of their parents.
The Government proclaim their intention to level up but before they can begin to do that, they must arrest the downward direction of travel for children’s services across the board. The pandemic has been a time of loss and sacrifice for the whole country, and indeed across the globe. After such disruption and  asking children and young people to give up so much—largely, it should be said, for the protection of others, including the age demographic of this Chamber—we must make support for their health, well-being and education our first priority. We must match the ambition that children have for their own futures and provide the investment and opportunity to back that up.
As my noble friend Lady Morris said in her inspiring opening to this debate, the public are looking for change in how we provide services for children. We need a government department with the ambition to take the lead while working collaboratively with other departments. The DfE announced this week a new education and skills delivery unit. I hope the Minister will tell us that this is the first step towards cross-departmental working, properly resourced and with the needs of children at the heart of every policy. It pains me to say it, but I am afraid that I lack the confidence, based on the Government’s record, that we should expect such a change in direction and priorities any time soon.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for spending her time here in the Chamber today, on her birthday, to debate this issue. As she acknowledged, her Motion is wide ranging, but I will attempt to stray into the other departmental areas that have been outlined by noble Lords today. I do hope, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, does not decide next year that it is his turn to put down a wide-ranging debate on his birthday.
I assure noble Lords that the Department for Education is aware of their passion and ambition, as well as the scale of the challenge. This is central to our main purpose as a Government: to help level up and build back better from the pandemic. Although I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a cheque from the Treasury, the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be more money coming down the track. Children and their educational recovery are a priority as we look forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also challenged the Government in his impassioned speech on whether what we are doing will work. I assure noble Lords that the extensive recovery package is underpinned by its evidence-based nature. We have decided to invest over £1 billion in one-to-one and small-group tutoring, some delivered through tuition partners and academic mentors, and some through school-led tutoring. We have decided to prioritise that because the evidence tells us of the months of catch-up that this will deliver for young people. That is a key thread for us.
Some £500 million is also to be invested in professional development and support for teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked whether we really needed to know that having the teacher in front of the student was a priority. In education, there is a clamour for funding lots of excellent things, but we are clear on the importance of having the teacher in front of the child and that giving them professional development, including through the early career framework, which will begin  in full this September, and enabling investment in mid and senior-level leadership, is an appropriate way, based on the evidence, to spend this money at this time because it is one of the ways to enable our children to catch up.
We have also realised in the light of the evidence that certain cohorts of disadvantaged children seem to have been more greatly affected by the lockdown. That is why tutoring is a pillar directed at them. We also know that schools need more in order to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, which is why, within a number of the planks of the recovery package, the funding is weighted towards such children. As I have told noble Lords before, that began with the £650 million pupil premium and has continued with the £302 million recovery premium and with the summer schools. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I can assure him and other noble Lords that we are funding what the evidence tells us will work to help these children catch up as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about the centrality of children, children’s rights and the place of children now. As noble Lords will be aware, the family test was introduced in 2014. It incorporates the family explicitly into domestic policy-making and ensures that potential impacts on family relationships are taken into account.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Secretary of State for Education is the Cabinet member in charge of driving family policy through. A number of noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and my noble friends Lady Wyld and Lord Bourne—mentioned the development of the family hub model and its importance. We have just finished procurement for a national centre for family hubs, and we are investing £14 million in that initiative. Local models are delivering, and we know we need to spread that best practice throughout this country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, mentioned the importance of physical education for children’s well-being. That is why we have opened up a bidding fund of £200 million for summer schools, and well over 80% of schools have asked to be involved in that.
I assure noble Lords that in my role in the department, when I look at schools and the successful schools in our country, I focus on those with a disproportionate number of SEND children and of free school meals children, such as Dixons Allerton Academy in Bradford and Ark St Alban’s Academy in Birmingham. Over 70% of Ark St Alban’s children are on free school meals, and it achieves great educational outcomes for children. That is what we are pointing to.
When we look at funds such as the summer school funds, I also look at why certain schools have not bid, to check what is happening. Sometimes, when schools are under stress and in crisis, they might not even have the capacity to ask the department for money. I check to see what is happening to the funds we place, whereas other aspects of the recovery package, such as the initial £650 million, went out through the normal funding mechanism from the department.
We have shown that we are ready to deliver for our children. As a number of noble Lords mentioned—the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Morris—an important part of what we have sought to deliver for children in that recovery package has been the remote education package. We have funded Google Classroom or Microsoft Education for more than 6,000 schools.
I know that some criticism has been levelled at the department’s provision of laptops and connectivity to children. By August 2020 the department had delivered 220,000 laptops. It may not be the most glamorous part of the department to talk about, but I have the privilege of overseeing the department’s commercial function. It is too easy to forget that during the first lockdown, there was a massive disruption in the global supply of technology products. Virtually the whole world—I use that term not accurately but as a turn of phrase—was seeking to buy laptops. The department’s commercial function, enabling us to purchase and distribute 1.3 million laptops, was no mean feat in the circumstances we faced.
Am I therefore saying to noble Lords that that was perfect? No, of course I am not, but we rose to that challenge and also provided 75,000 4G wireless routers. We spent £400 million on this overall. Many noble Lords will be aware that many of our mobile phone companies also rose to the challenge and offered free data to so many children. This provision was in addition to the 2.9 million laptops and computers that existed before the pandemic started. We have really sought to rise to that challenge.
For instance, a recent initiative from the department, Connect the Classroom, is trying to get some, particularly rural, classrooms, the speed of broadband they need to deliver remote education. We know that many teachers went above and beyond to assist parents in helping their children to access and use the technology that we have provided. As the Prime Minister said, there is more coming down the track, but a huge amount of money—over £3 billion now—has been put into education recovery support. That is on top of an uplift announced in 2019 of £14.4 billion going into schools overall.
Of course, many ideas, for instance the review of the school day—which my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, mentioned—were the work of Sir Kevan Collins. We reiterate our thanks and respect for his work and the time that he spent assessing needs. But there were various views on the extension of the school day and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, expressed the concern of teachers. Beside the financial implications, we have now put out a short consultation about that with teachers and other stakeholders.
The noble Lords, Lord Jones, Lord Patel and Lord Woodley, mentioned skills. We are aware that youth employment prospects have been disproportionately affected by the economic fallout. The ONS data continue to highlight the significant impact of the pandemic on the labour market and unemployment is expected to continue rising during 2021. That is why the Chancellor announced support for jobs and skills, with a focus on young people, in the summer economic update of  July 2020. The plan included the £2 billion Kickstart scheme to create hundreds of thousands of new, fully subsidised jobs for young people aged 16 to 24 on universal credit, and a £900 million investment to scale up employment support schemes and double the number of work coaches to 27,000.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Jones, also mentioned technical digital skills. I am extremely proud to be the Minister taking the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill through your Lordships’ House. At the same time, we have introduced T-levels, a high-quality alternative to A-levels. Over 250 employers have determined the content of those T-levels, so students can gain the best knowledge, practical skills and grounding in their first career. I assure noble Lords that the first T-levels will include digital skills. Noble Lords may be aware that we have also rolled out a new thing called a digital skills boot camp, which is a 12-week programme to enable people to retrain. We are about to launch a second wave of those.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also noted the importance of STEM subjects. I share his enthusiasm in this area and emphasise that, over recent years, we have seen an increase in girls taking STEM subjects at A-level and are committed to seeing that increase continue. As Minister for Women, I also had the particular pleasure of meeting young women who have taken those courses and STEM apprenticeships. The new specialist sixth-form colleges for 16 to 19 year-olds, focusing on maths, have a specific target for outreach to increase the number of girls taking maths, further maths and physics at those institutions.
I turn to another plank of this debate, namely health. We are aware of the unacceptable variations in health outcomes for children across the country, both in geographical and population groups, and of the differences between some of the most deprived areas compared to the least. For instance, emergency hospital admissions for children under five can be 38% higher.
Early years was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wyld and Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Watson. We have set up the Healthy Child Programme for nought to 19 year-olds, which is universal in reach, but personalised to the health inequalities in the early years of life. This programme is designed to identify and treat problems early and help parents to care well for their children, change and improve behaviour, and prevent preventable diseases.
There is also the focus on physical activity as part of health and well-being, which I mentioned before and I believe was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We have announced more than £10 million of funding for schools across England this academic year to enable them to take part in existing schools sports and swimming activities outside school hours. I will take back the specific request by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for a meeting about the evidence on the extension of the school day. I also have the pleasure of being responsible for the out-of-school settings part of the department’s work.
We have also launched Tackling Obesity: Empowering Adults and Children to Live Healthier Lives, an overarching campaign to set out measures to get the nation fit and  healthy, which will protect against Covid and help the NHS. Noble Lords will be aware that the sugar tax was recently introduced and funds from it have been funding additional PE support in our schools.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who mentioned the office for health promotion, that it will be under the professional leadership of the Chief Medical Officer. It will work systematically to tackle the top preventable risk factors to improve public health and reduce health inequalities.
Another important area raised by my noble friend Lady Wyld is perinatal health. The NHS Long Term Plan includes a commitment to enable at least 66,000 women with moderate to severe complex perinatal mental health difficulties to access specialist, evidence-based care in the community by 2023-24.
When I sit here in your Lordships’ House, listening to noble Lords, I am working out who has been speaking about what. The most frequently raised issue has been child mental health, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris, Lady Massey, Lady Ritchie and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Winston, Lord Watson, Lord Bichard and Lord Patel, my noble friend Lord Bourne and two noble Lords whose names I cannot read because of my terrible handwriting and who I will write to afterwards.
There has been a particular impact on young people’s mental health so, on 10 May, during Mental Health Awareness Week, we announced £17 million to improve facilities in schools to support mental health. More than 7,800 schools and colleges in England will now be able to train a senior mental health lead from within their staff, and there will be additional funding to local authorities so that they can continue to offer training and advice from mental health experts to schools and build on the Wellbeing for Education Return programme launched last September. Specifically in relation to that programme, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned teachers’ well-being. That programme was designed not just for pupils but for staff as well.
That sum is in addition to the £79 million announced in March to boost children and young persons’ mental health support in response to the pandemic by increasing the number of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to around 400 schools and colleges. That will cover an estimated 3 million children and young people by 2023. Furthermore, we have a mental health in education action group working within the department, led by my honourable friends the Minister for Children and Families, Vicky Ford, and the Minister for Universities, Michelle Donelan. I was in a school recently where a staggering 70% of the children had had a significant bereavement, so I do not want to underestimate what has been facing our schools as they have gone back. What I have outlined on mental health support is in addition to the NHS long-term plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his impassioned speech outlined the issues to do with inequality. Providing support for vulnerable children and young people is a priority for the Government, which is why the DfE leads a cross-government response to safeguard and protect vulnerable children and young people. It is important in this regard to look at the investment that  is going into the early years; we know what can happen if children do not get that good start, as in the Andrea Leadsom review into the first 1,001 critical days. That is why we are screening for language development and development generally between the age of two and two and a half, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyld, outlined. The family hub is catching that, to enable children to be school ready. That is why we are also investing £153 million in the early years workforce and why, in the third lockdown, the early years settings remained open—and all credit to them in the work that they have done.
Of course, families come in all different shapes and sizes. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, rightly brought to our attention kinship carers. I shall write to her in more detail. We are working to ensure that local services are joined up across government and locally. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, noted, there is no single published strategy for vulnerable children. However, through the pandemic the DfE has led across government to support that, and has reported to the Cabinet Office since April 2020. That has cemented cross-government working, including with Ofsted, PHE and NHS England.
Alongside vulnerable children, we are aware that the pandemic has been particularly challenging for children with special educational needs and disabilities,. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who brought up that important area. We have invested £42 million in that area and resourced the Family Fund with more than £27 million to get that support, by way of a grant, to families on low incomes and to those children who have special educational needs and disabilities.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Brinton, talked about the pupil premium. For mainstream and special schools, we will now base the pupil premium funding for 2021-22 on October rather than January census data. That does not mean that the pupil premium funding is decreasing; on the contrary, we expect pupil premium funding to increase to more than £2.5 billion a year. As a result of those changes, a typical school will receive an increase in their pupil premium funding for this year.
I am fast running out of time, but I want to respond to the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds about young carers. We offered a school place for vulnerable children, but this has been a difficult situation for young carers, with their caring responsibilities often increasing during the pandemic due to their particular circumstances. Obviously, many of them got the free school meal vouchers and many of them would have had a computer, but I shall write to the right reverend Prelate to outline in more detail the specific support for young carers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, both spoke powerfully about child poverty. I do not think that anyone here accepts that we should be complacent about that—we are not, and we fully recognise the profound impact that the pandemic has had on many of the poorest families. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, highlighted the fact that hunger is a scourge on our society. Obviously, there has been an increase in universal credit. We spend more than £110 billion a year—we did last year—on in-work benefit support, and there was the £500 or so  working tax credit support, which was the equivalent of the £20 a week that we gave in additional universal credit support. There was also the £229 million given to local authorities to deal with particular needs, which was ring-fenced mainly for bills and food. So there has been considerable support.
As noble Lords may be aware, figures came out today on free school meals, with 1.7 million pupils now eligible for a school meal, which will save families around £400 a year. In addition, around 1.3 million infants in school will benefit from a free school meal, and, obviously, free school meals were extended to disadvantaged students within the FE sector. Overall—although there were teething problems, we can politely say—the Edenred voucher scheme, whereby we paid the face value of the voucher and not more than that, was worth more than £470 million.
Before I close, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that period poverty is a societal ill. That is why we have made free period products available for state-funded primary and secondary colleges in England. The scheme is demand-led, which means that schools and colleges can order the products when they need them. I believe—I am going from memory here—that we have also extended the same provision in our prisons to those who need them there.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I want to make it clear that the passion, ambition and determination are there in the department. We are collecting the evidence and we know how much children need to catch up, not just academically but on those social skills that many noble Lords outlined. They also need to catch up on those relational skills where they have missed out, and in terms of their physical activity and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke about those in temporary accommodation, as many noble Lords have today. I have friends in a two-bedroom flat; there are two adults and three children, with no outside space. When one knows such families, it is shocking to see the decline in the health and well-being of young people when they have not been able to get out. We have always made it clear in the guidance to schools to use outside space as much as they can to improve the health and well-being of their students.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I have obviously not mentioned all of your Lordships, but I think some of you will be found on my WhatsApp message as somebody who will receive a letter from the department.

Baroness Morris of Yardley: On a personal level, I thank everyone for their birthday wishes. I am sure I can speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Coaker in saying that neither of us could think of a better way of spending our birthdays than with the 42 people who have been part of this debate.
On a more serious note, I thank the speakers for their contributions to this really good debate. I have learned a great deal. Every Member who spoke has shown a concern and passion, not just for children but with some really good ideas of what we can do to improve things. There has been cross-party agreement,  first, about the importance of this area; secondly, that it is not right as it is; and, thirdly, that it is worthy of prioritising to try to get it right.
I want to make two or three points in closing. First, I acknowledge the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, because I did not mention children with disabilities. I realise that this is what happens: it tends to be a bolt-on and if you make a mainstream speech, you tend not to include those groups. We should never get to a position where the voice of a group that finds it difficult to have its voice heard is further excluded because the voice of another group that finds it difficult to get its heard rises to the top. It is not a competition between the voices of the poor and the voices of people with disability. The noble Lord’s speech was a timely reminder for my thinking to be more integrated than it sometimes is.
Of all the speakers, perhaps my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lady McIntosh said the most about us acknowledging the people who have delivered the services. Again, as we finish the debate I put on record my thanks to not just the teachers and school leaders, and everyone who works in schools, but all those who have worked with children’s services over the last two years. Their contribution has been immense and their energy levels must be almost sapped. They must be hugely frustrated in some ways about what they have not been able to achieve, but we are immensely proud of what they have been able to.
I will refer to the Minister’s speech. I thank her, as ever, for her detailed consideration, careful listening and very thorough responses to what we say. I have never questioned her commitment to her portfolio; she is a shining example of really caring about the job that she does. But I want to take two points, because they lead into the most important thing in regard to this debate.
First, on the evidence base, tutoring is evidence-based. Ironically, it was the Education Endowment Foundation, set up by Kevan Collins, which proved that. We had the man leading the project telling us all that tutoring was evidence-based, but nowhere in that evidence does it say that by itself it is enough. That is the crucial thing: by itself, it is a grain of sand within what needs to be done.
I get frustrated when Ministers say to me, “But we are looking at the evidence, and it points to tutoring”. I cannot argue with that, but it is not enough. It is the same with the resources: I end up thinking that all those billions of pounds, which I cannot even imagine, are not enough because they have not delivered the results. The best analogy that I can think of is: if Ministers were to go to a school that was bottom of the performance tables and it said, “But we have tried our best. We have done everything. We have done this, that and the other”, the Minister would say, “You are at the bottom. This is not good enough”. This is exactly the same.
Whatever money has been spent, you have to look at the output, not the input. I am not arguing with the billions spent, but I am looking at what this has achieved and saying that it has not delivered the goods. That has to be the agenda for going forward. With respect, if I was a Minister, I would be defending the actions of the Government, but we need a sign from them that they are also thinking that it is not  enough. If they can say to us, “We know that it is not enough”, I would give them a bit more credit for what they have done—I really would. It is not enough and we need some further thinking.
For my last point, I will mention some other noble Lords’ speeches to illustrate it because they really struck my mind. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke about health, and to my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who spoke about benefits. I then listened to my noble friend Lady Drake. They all spoke early on, shortly after I did, about kinship carers. I try to speak in most education debates in the House of Lords, and I say to myself that I do it because I care about and am interested in children. Before those noble Lords spoke, I did not know about what they said: I did not know as much detail on the mental health of children as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, told us about, I had no understanding of the complexity of child poverty that my noble friend Lady Sherlock told us about, and I had not really thoroughly understood how kinship carers can get left out. That is a problem because they care about children too.
Those three people speak in the House time after time because they all care about children. I rarely speak in the same debates as them because we discuss not children but the separate siloes. I speak in the education debates, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, speaks in the health debates and my noble friend Lady Sherlock speaks in the debates on pensions and benefits. That is just an illustration.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who of course has a first-class background in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the big win here is changing the machinery of government to deliver for children. Given the way that the Department for Education, the lead department for education, is structured at the moment, it will not work. We need something bigger than that—whether it is a Cabinet Minister for children or not I do not know, but there are enough good minds for us to do the thinking, as has been shown in this debate. That is where I want to take us next.
Let us not argue about what has been achieved but instead take from this the joint and shared ambition that I have heard to do more and do better. The machinery of government that we have at the moment does not quite deliver that, but, in this House alone, there is enough good will, energy, experience and expertise to at least take us to the next stage. I thank all Members for their very valuable contributions. I have learned a great deal and I will go away and think about this. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Sitting suspended.

Ofsted Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 10 June.
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Ofsted review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges.
This is a very serious matter. Abuse in any form is abhorrent, especially when it is abuse of the vulnerable or children. The Everyone’s Invited testimonies have shown us the scale and nature of sexual abuse and harassment experienced by young people, often from their peers, and I would like to thank the founders and all those who have shared their experiences. Anyone who has visited their website will have been struck by the huge volume of accounts, many of which contain chilling stories of abuse and harassment.
Let me be clear: sexism and misogyny are not okay. Sexual harassment, let alone non-consensual touching, groping or sexual contact, is not okay—none of this is okay. Sending unrequested nudes is not okay, and neither is bullying your peers into sending a nude and then sharing it with your mates. Yet this has become commonplace for so many young people. We, as government, as parents, as educators and as a society, must work together to turn the cultural dial.
This Government acted quickly by asking Ofsted to carry out the review that has reported its findings today, and setting up a specific National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline to support those who wanted to report sexual abuse or receive advice. More than 400 calls have been received so far, and about 70 have been referred to other agencies, including the police. The number is 0800 136 663 and it will remain open until October.
Today, I would like to thank Ofsted for working at pace to ensure we have fresh insight into the scale of the issues young people are facing. I thank all who contributed, especially victims’ representatives and the schools and colleges. I thank the 900 young people who gave their views, and the reference group, with its representatives from a wide range of organisations, including social care, the police, education leaders, and the Independent Schools Council. Their input has been invaluable.
Sometimes, sexual abuse happens within school or college, but sometimes it happens outside the school gates. In both cases, it is important to support our teachers to deal with the issues quickly and sensitively so that our children and young people get the right assistance. Much of the abuse identified impacts predominantly on girls and young women. We know from the annual Girls’ Attitudes survey that, increasingly, young girls feel pressured about their appearance, but the Ofsted review is the first time we have evidence of the scale of activity in education settings that at best can be referred to as sexism, and at worst is repeated, sustained abuse. This is why we are working across government, prioritising the child sexual abuse strategy and the violence against women and girls strategy, as well as the online safety Bill, to make sure they can be delivered in a co-ordinated and holistic way. Everyone needs to coalesce around this issue, put aside institutional boundaries and put the needs of children and young people first.
We fully accept the findings of the review, and we believe that schools and colleges, safeguarding partners, government and the inspectorates can collectively make  the difference. On the recommendations that Ofsted has identified for the Government, we will go further. Much of this work is already under way. We are already updating the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance for this September, ensuring that schools have even clearer guidance on how to deal with reports of sexual abuse, and we will also update the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance in line.
We have already introduced the new compulsory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. In both primary and secondary schools, the curriculum’s focus on healthy relationships helps children to know where to seek help and report abuse and address inappropriate behaviour such as harassment, exploitation, sexism and misogyny. It is the first time that the curriculum has been updated since 2000, and from next term we expect the RSHE curriculum to be implemented in full.
There is more that we are doing. We know that our teachers do not always feel comfortable in teaching about sex and relationships, but it is vital that we get this right. We therefore want to support and work with school leaders and other agencies to help teachers and school staff to deliver the RSHE curriculum as effectively as possible, and I am asking schools to dedicate time from an inset day for that purpose.
Children have said that it is important to teach the RSHE curriculum from a young age. Young people supporting their peers is a powerful way to bring about change, and we are considering how we can get older students to support the delivery of the RSHE curriculum. While the statutory curriculum does not currently apply to further education colleges, there is good practice in many of these colleges, and we are working with the sector to address this gap.
It is important that children and young people feel confident that they will be heard and that action will be taken. We want to work with young people and hear their voices, so that they can inform the curriculum and communications. I and other Ministers will be meeting young people to help achieve that.
Every day in our schools, designated safeguarding leads undertake amazing work to keep children safe. They deserve our admiration and support. Today we are announcing that we will work with up to a further 500 schools on our project to support and supervise designated safeguarding leads in up to 10 additional local authorities, and that we are already developing an online resource hub where designated safeguarding leads can access relevant advice. The Government will undertake further work to consider how we can give greater status and support to designated safeguarding leads, looking first at the model we have for special educational needs co-ordinators. We are also discussing with Ofsted whether any additional support is needed for children and young people with special educational needs.
This is a cultural issue and not just a matter of how to investigate individual cases. We do expect all schools and colleges to have robust policies in place to create a culture that treats all young people fairly and addresses concerns immediately, but schools and colleges cannot do that alone and should not think that they have to.  We expect every local safeguarding partnership to reach out to all its schools and be clear on how they are engaged in local safeguarding arrangements. We would like to see that happen by the October half-term. We are developing a programme looking at best practice in how schools engage in local safeguarding arrangements.
It is also clear from the testimonies that our young people continue to face similar issues when they move to university. The Office for Students recently published a statement of expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct; all universities should take note of that and act on it. Today, the OfS has asked all universities to review and update their systems, policies and procedures in advance of the next academic year. The Government will continue to work with the OfS to ensure that all students feel confident to report incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence.
There is another thing that is not okay: the ease of access to and increasing violence of online pornography. This increasingly accessible online content, which often portrays extremely violent sex, can give young people warped views of sex and deeply disturbing views on consent. The Government have already taken many actions to protect victims of sexual abuse and sexual violence, including by outlawing coercive control. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has outlawed non-fatal strangulation and removed the rough-sex defence to murder. We have criminalised upskirting and both the sending of and the threat of sending revenge pornography.
The online safety Bill will deliver a ground-breaking system of accountability and oversight of tech companies and make them accountable to an independent regulator. The strongest protections in the new regulatory framework will be for children, and companies will need to take steps to ensure that children cannot access services that pose the highest risk of harm, such as online pornography. In addition, the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have asked the Children’s Commissioner to start looking immediately at how we can reduce children and young people’s access to pornography and other harmful content. That work will identify whether there are actions that can be taken more quickly to protect children before the online safety Bill comes into effect.
Finally, there is an important role for parents. As a mum, I know of the difficulty in discussing these issues with our children, but parents need to be aware of what their children are doing and how to support them when things go wrong. Parents, please do look at the support available from the UK Safer Internet Centre, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Internet Watch Foundation. Each has detailed resources to help upskill us all in what can sometimes feel like a daunting world. Right now, it is estimated that 1.4 million children access pornography every month in the UK. What they are seeing is changing how they perceive sex and relationships. So please, parents, turn on your broadband filters and make sure that you understand and switch on the safety features on your children’s phones and devices. Just as you would not put your children into physical danger, do not allow your child to go into digital danger.
The rising trend in sexual abuse must be stopped. We, the Government, stand by our schools, our families and all those who care about children, and we will do whatever is right to safeguard them. For that reason, I commend this Statement to the House.”

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: My Lords, Ofsted was asked to conduct a rapid review of sexual harassment and abuse in schools and colleges in England after thousands of harrowing testimonies detailing sexual abuse and misconduct in schools were posted on the Everyone’s Invited website this year. I was last teaching full-time in 2016, when these problems were emerging, but nothing was evident on the scale that has erupted in the past couple of years.
Inspectors visited 32 unnamed schools and colleges in both the independent and state sectors, including a number named on Everyone’s Invited, and spoke to more than 900 children and young people. Nine out of 10 girls and half the boys who took part in the review said that being sent unsolicited explicit pictures or videos happened
“a lot or sometimes to them or their peers.”
A similar proportion of girls—92%—and three-quarters of boys complained of recurrent sexist name-calling. The report said:
“The frequency of these harmful sexual behaviours means that some children and young people consider them normal.”
Although the review focused mainly on secondary school-aged children, inspectors went to two primary schools and found that there were already concerns about children viewing porn and inappropriate images on social media.
Ofsted wants head teachers to take a whole-school approach and develop a culture where all kinds of sexual harassment are addressed and sanctioned. It calls for sex education to allow sufficient time to cover consent and sharing explicit images, and it urges the Government to take the findings of the review into account as they develop the online safety Bill. Ofsted tells us that this is a cultural issue; it is about attitudes and behaviours becoming normalised. Schools and colleges cannot solve that by themselves. The Government need to look at online bullying and abuse and the ease with which children can access pornography.
The Ofsted report echoes the findings of a landmark report by the Commons Women and Equalities Committee in 2016. I simply ask the Minister: why has nothing happened since then? How can we be sure that real change will come about after the Ofsted report? We have had reports in the past and nothing has happened, so what is different now?
Earlier today in the education debate—eloquently led by my noble friend Lady Morris—I spoke about an outstanding report published yesterday by the Welsh Labour Government on their plans for education recovery in Wales, which puts learners at the centre. It is called Renew and Reform: Supporting Learners’ Wellbeing and Progression, and I again recommend it as essential reading.
Yesterday also saw the publication by Minister Jeremy Miles MS of a written statement on sexual harassment and abuse in education settings in Wales, and I sincerely offer the following suggestions to this Government from the Welsh Government’s review.  The Minister will request Estyn, our Ofsted, to conduct a review into culture and process in schools to help protect and support young people better. While the findings of that review will play an important role in supporting settings and informing government policy, the Minister recognises that we cannot await the outcome of that review before he acts, so he expects that every school and local authority should have a designated lead responsible for supporting learners with relationships and sexuality education.
The Welsh Government have published extensive guidance on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse, including their statutory guidance, Keeping Learners Safe. Furthermore, they have published violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence guidance for school governors and a toolkit for education staff containing best practice, as well as supporting the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales with the development of its strategy. The Welsh Government’s National Action Plan Preventing and Responding to Child Sexual Abuse has 10 objectives, including objective 2:
“Increased awareness in children of the importance of safe, equal and healthy relationships and that abusive behaviour is always wrong.”
Working with regional safeguarding boards, they are implementing the plan with the view that more must be done. I once again offer the UK Government, via the Minister, the opportunity to learn from what devolved Governments are already doing in this extremely difficult and sensitive area.
I have a series of questions for the UK Government. Will they now commit to using the online safety Bill to tackle the forced and unwanted sharing of nude photos and other online harassment? What support will the Government provide to schools to create the whole-school and whole-college approaches to tackling sexual harassment recommended by Ofsted? Does the Minister agree that the Office for Students’ recent Statement of Expectations falls short of the action needed to tackle the estimated 50,000 incidents of sexual harassment and abuse taking place on university campuses each year? Something must indeed be done.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I welcome the Ofsted review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges, and I am pleased to hear the Government’s response.
I have been raising much of what has been highlighted in the review for many years in this House. Countless parents have contacted me to tell me about the sexual abuse and harassment that their children have had to face in schools. Some children as young as four have been sexually assaulted by children as young as 10. Teenage girls have told me about the aggressive sexual abuse that they have had to face for more than 10 years now. Many have felt ashamed about what they have been asked to perform, and they have even resorted to self-harm and experienced suicidal thoughts.
So nothing in the review has come as a surprise to me or to many teachers across the country in both public and state schools, as well as in colleges and universities. Many signed an open letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister just last month, highlighting our concerns at the epidemic of sexual abuse fuelled by online pornography. Let us give a thought to all those who have been affected.
The review by Ofsted rightly has a strong emphasis on education, and the PSHE Association has long recommended that best practice for RSHE is for it to be delivered as part of a spiral PSHE curriculum that builds children’s knowledge and skills and contributes to supporting them in navigating their social worlds both now and in future. That requires timetabled lessons, trained teachers and accountability through inspection bodies. What commitments are there from inspectoral bodies, including Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate, to inspect PSHE, including RSHE, to the same standard as they would inspect other curriculum areas, including Ofsted ensuring that PSHE is inspected within the “quality of education” element of its inspection framework? It is vital that schools provide evidence of their three Is—intent, implementation and impact—as they would for history, maths, science or any other curriculum areas.
The current training modules released by the DfE are widely criticised by teachers due to their focusing on simply imparting factual knowledge to teachers. PSHE and RSHE can be dangerous if taught by teachers who are undertrained and underprepared. Will the Government commit to training that demonstrates effective improvement of teachers’ confidence and competence in teaching RSHE? If the DfE is not able to provide this training, will the Government ensure that schools have funding and teachers’ time to enable it to be available from reputable organisations that have the expertise and experience to equip our teachers?
The Government must ensure that there is guidance that PSHE, including RSHE, is delivered in timetabled lessons of the same length as lessons for other curriculum areas. So-called drop-down days sporadically placed throughout the year cannot be relied upon in schools, because the topics covered are highly sensitive. A whole day spent on such topics could re-traumatise students so much that we have to be careful. Will the Government put guidance in place for school leaders, to ensure that they support their PSHE leads by providing them with time to teach PSHE, time to plan and time to lead and train their colleagues?
I am pleased that the review focused on pornography. Right now, we have on the statute book legislation that Parliament passed four years ago which does two things. It prevents children accessing commercial pornographic websites through age verification and makes provision for the regulator to take robust action against any site showing extreme pornography which normalises violence against women. As the Government reflect on their next steps, they would be well advised to review their decision not to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which should have been in place 18 months ago. In October 2019, the Government performed a spectacular U-turn, saying they were going back to the drawing board and starting again with completely new legislation. It was only last month that we saw that alternative draft Bill.
I know that Part 3 does not address pornography on social media, but it addresses pornographic websites. Importantly, research published last month on the viewing of online pornography by 16 and 17 year-olds states that
“pornography was much more frequently viewed on pornographic websites than on social media, showing how important the regulation of such sites remains”.
We need regulation to deal with pornographic websites and pornography on social media. That is why both Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act and the online harms Bill are so important. To use the fact that Part 3 does not deal with pornography on social media as a reason not to implement the legislation that we have already passed is quite absurd, especially as the draft Bill has not even started pre-legislative scrutiny. It will be at least three years, and probably four to five, by the time the online harms Act and its attendant legislation and regulator are ready to deliver—significantly longer than it would take to implement Part 3. Let us do it.
I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to work to
“identify whether there are actions that can be taken more quickly to protect children before the Online Safety Bill comes into effect”.
This is music to my ears. Without age verification now, preventing young people viewing pornography is like trying to get a drug addict off heroin while at the same time giving them heroin. We are in a place where we can take robust action in relation to pornographic websites immediately, as an interim measure, while we develop the best possible online harms Bill to address the growing social media challenge. Will the Government do so for the sake of our young people and take action to halt this scourge on society and young minds now?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their contributions and for outlining the common theme of the questions I have been asked about the RHSE curriculum. In fact, we have been acting on the WESC report from 2016. That was the beginning of the development of the new curriculum, which was updated from the 2000 curriculum. We have been working very hard since 2016, so the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, can be reassured that we have taken action and have been developing that curriculum. We responded to the contributions from teachers that they wanted resource and help. There is a portal for teacher resources, and various webinar-type training sessions have been run as well.
Even though we have all lived through the pandemic, the RHSE curriculum, which is compulsory in all schools —private, independent and state-funded—was brought into effect in September 2020. We gave schools some flexibility about how they introduce it—for instance, there has been a requirement for them to consult with parents on the curriculum and the resources during the pandemic—but as of September this year they need to be delivering that curriculum. A great deal of work and effort has gone into developing appropriate support for teachers, but we recognise that Ofsted’s review asks us to go even further, saying that teachers do not have the confidence to teach this curriculum, so we are working to see what more we can do on the portal and to support teachers to deliver this curriculum.
I am pleased to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that the Welsh equivalent of Ofsted will now be doing a review following the publication of the Ofsted review. I thank Her Majesty’s chief inspector and her team for doing such a swift and thorough  review, and I thank the 900 young people who took part, talking to the team and discussing matters that were perhaps not the easiest to discuss.
The Government have responded to feedback on issues of peer-on-peer abuse going back to about 2016, when schools responded to the annual Keeping Children Safe in Education consultations by saying they were not confident in dealing with the issue of peer-on-peer abuse manifesting particularly in sexual abuse and sexual harassment. We updated the guidance: there is now a chapter on this particular matter, and there is stand-alone guidance on peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual abuse in schools. We have developed that as a response to the sector. Although the Ofsted review makes recommendations relating to the other statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, there was no specific requirement, because we have been working hard with the contribution of the sector year on year.
As I said, the guidance is out for consultation each year—one year for technical consultation and the next for substantive review. We have responded to that. That is not to say there is not more we need to do. There are issues around the low-level concerns, and that spreads beyond the peer-on-peer abuse and into workforce/children issues: what do you do when you have low-level concerns that are below the threshold for report? How do you deal with those disciplinary matters? We will be looking at low-level concerns.
On the issues to do with online safety, the online safety Bill will, of course, come with pre-legislative scrutiny, so noble Lords will have an opportunity to look at that in detail. The Secretary of State has also asked the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, to specifically look at the issue of access to pornography. I will take back specific questions on Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which I was not, unfortunately, familiar with, to see about that issue.
The Office for Students is asking universities to review their practices on how they deal with these allegations and how they fulfil their duties to protect students while they are on campus. As far as I am aware, this is inspected as part of the new Ofsted framework. It came in when Ofsted was not there, if I remember correctly, from September 2020, but Ofsted came back in some form and is now back fully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned, the ISI was also involved on the reference group for the review, I believe. We are working closely and there are recommendations on how it is to conduct its own inspections, its training of inspectors and making sure that it talks to young people about these issues—not just bullying and other things but grasping the nettle when it is in schools to talk appropriately to single-sex groups of pupils while it does its inspection.
It is a learning process. We are not starting from nothing. As I say, there has been a lot to do and we have worked very hard on guidance to try to aid schools in this role. The NSPCC helpline is also open until October for young people who have posted on Everyone’s Invited to phone and get the appropriate help and be put through to appropriate agencies, if that is needed. There are also recommendations in terms of the safeguarding partnerships which we put  into statute, requiring the police, health and the local authority to work together, and the review asks them to reach out to schools, as they are increasingly part of the process for schools to safeguard their students by referring specific concerns.
This is very much a sense check for us at the moment as to what has been going on. Yes, we have been appalled by the levels, but we are grateful to have had this moment when they were revealed. The review is just one part of a work in progress. We should not underestimate this and I am grateful that the review pointed out the need to professionalise the role of the designated safeguarding lead in our schools. Those people do an amazing job, often dealing with workforce/children issues, with peer-on-peer issues and with children’s social care issues. We should not underestimate what is expected of them in what they are trying to deliver in schools for us. It was clear to me when I met some head teachers the strains that there are on DSLs. They often have to look at these images and then go home to their families: it is a really difficult job. We are looking at the model of the SENCO to see what more we can do to professionalise the DSLs, but I pay tribute to our schools: they really are doing their best to deal with this issue.
Peer-on-peer abuse is very difficult, particularly when a lot of this is not in the criminal justice system. That leaves schools adjudicating, sometimes on issues that may be criminal but do not go down the criminal justice path: how do they protect the victim instead of the criminal justice system? It is a very difficult behaviour and safeguarding issue in our schools and it will be a work in progress to help them fulfil those duties to safeguard our young people.

Baroness Barker: We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I welcome this review. I was very struck by the fact that we have heard a lot of discussion, in the press and else- where, about child-on-child abuse, but I shall confine my points to the occasions when children feel uncomfortable in the presence of teachers, in specific circumstances. Obviously, when you are teaching PE—gym, for example, and dance—there will be some sort of contact, but there will usually be other people around, and a lot of ballet schools now have glass windows.
What I am particularly concerned about is the fact that the teaching of instruments, in particular string instruments, tends to be a one-on-one activity. Given the financial constraints on teaching music at the moment, it is not going to be possible to have a second person there—a chaperone, if you like. Although I know that windows are being considered, I think there is a preferable alternative.
I base my comments after consulting a distinguished violinist, Madeleine Mitchell, who informed me that it is often necessary for a violin teacher to demonstrate something by moving a pupil’s arm or touching their hand. That is because the angle of the bow is absolutely crucial when playing a string instrument; there is no  way around that. Would the Minister endorse and take back to her department the advocacy of video, which has three advantages? The first is that it discourages the abuse of pupils. Secondly, it gives the teacher some position of fallback if he is falsely accused of abuse. Thirdly, it is a fantastic teaching device because people can replay a lesson and see what mistakes they are making. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that these are good ideas.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, in relation to the Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance I have outlined, it was changed fundamentally in, I think, 2014 to become a framework document so that schools and institutions know their duties and can put in place the policies they need for their particular setting. There are different risks in a rural primary school from those in a busy secondary school in an urban setting. It will be up to schools to frame particular lessons so that the instances the noble Lord outlined can take place. However, I recognise that there are specific issues related to PE and music lessons, particularly given the dynamic in specialist institutions. The noble Lord will probably be aware that that was a concern of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which had to investigate whether it was something to do with that particular environment. However, Keeping Children Safe in Education gives all schools the framework to put in place for their setting and for particular subjects, so that they can work out how to keep children safe.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I declare my interest as editor of The Good Schools Guide. A good pastoral system is effective and open, particularly with regard to communication within the school, so that everyone feels comfortable about talking to teachers and pupils alike. It is effective and open about taking action when something goes wrong so that everyone knows what has happened, what is being done and how the matter is to be resolved. It is also effective and open in its liaison with parents and outside agencies so that the whole problem is treated, not just the little local bit which has appeared within the school.
The Government can make a substantial difference in this regard by requiring Ofsted and the Office for Students to keep their eyes open. We will come back to that in one of my amendments to the skills Bill. That will enable schools to know that this issue is going to be looked at, so they will keep it at the top of the list of things they are trying to do. They will know that this is something that cannot be neglected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, this has been going on for a very long time, but it has just been ignored or accepted as something that it is hard to talk about. A real opportunity has been provided by the Everyone’s Invited website. This is a moment when we can change things and we should take advantage of that.
The Government also need to provide a structure for sharing best practice because it is really quite hard to get this right on your own. A school needs to have the confidence to reject bad advice. Indeed, that is needed at university as well. Look at all the problems that universities have had in dealing with students with mental health issues and the knots they have tied   themselves in because they have not understood what the correct procedures are when a student is in severe distress.
A number of charities are circulating material to schools that is actively against involving parents and actively against going to outside safeguarding agencies, as well as being greatly biased against girls in terms of their relationships with their fellow pupils. This sort of problem needs to be dealt with by the Government, because only the Government can provide that security of reaction and the confidence that you are doing something right. You cannot ask schools, with all the pressures on them, to try to discern the difference between good and bad advice coming at them from charities and pressure groups. I hope my noble friend will confirm my reading of the Statement: that the Government will be doing just that.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, on the cultural points my noble friend references, schools are reflecting wider society so he is right that we need to recognise that there is a role for everyone. The guidance is really clear that safeguarding in a school is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone should be given chapter 1 of KCS and they all should read it, and that means the cleaner and the caterers as well as the teaching staff. There should be an environment within a school where a young person can share with any appropriate adult, and they should know what their obligations are. The guidance is really clear that school staff—whoever they are—should never assume that something has already been reported and it is someone else’s responsibility.
Schools know that they are going to be inspected on this. One of the four pillars of the Ofsted 2019 framework is very clearly around safeguarding. Each pillar stands and is assessed separately, so if you are inadequate for safeguarding you will fail an Ofsted inspection regardless of your educational performance. That is really important for those schools, some of which were named by Everyone’s Invited, that have very good educational records and yet have been found by reports on Everyone’s Invited to be lacking in terms of culture, particularly in respect of girls.
As Minister for the Schools System, I can say that sharing best practice is what the multi-academy trust system is all about. It enables groups of schools to have robust safeguarding training and safeguarding leads that share best practice and concerns regarding pupils as they move from one phase of education to another.

Baroness Gale: Does the Minister agree that more work needs to be undertaken to discover the root cause of why boys are showing such contempt and disrespect towards girls, as sexual abuse and harassment against girls seems to be out of control? I mention girls particularly as the majority are girls, although we know that some boys can be affected as well.
In the last few days, I have been speaking to girls I know very well and asked them about this. I was quite shocked at what they told me. It starts at high school, and it goes on through university and beyond. I said, “Well, how often does it happen?” The reply was, “Every time we go out.” That is what girls have to put up with.
I was going to ask the Minister if she was aware that the Welsh Government have recently agreed to undertake a similar review, but my noble friend Lady Wilcox mentioned this. So, will the Minister agree to work with the devolved Administrations to develop a comprehensive programme to ensure that girls and young women can feel safe in education, wherever they live or study?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, the Everyone’s Invited platform and the subsequent review by Ofsted reveal that there has been a normalisation—mainly by girls—and acceptance of certain behaviours that are actually unacceptable. We have got a task on our hands to unpick how that is happening, how that behaviour is being exhibited in the first place and how they are then accepting that it is normal or acceptable behaviour, when it is not.
One of the main planks we have introduced is the RSHE curriculum, which will explore issues around consent and will hopefully give young people an understanding of what is and is not a healthy relationship —between adult and child as well as peer on peer— although this may take some time to embed with young people. Other noble Lords have mentioned teacher training. Time is being set inside on an Inset day, because obviously, you need to train the entire workforce as quickly as possible in relation to these cultural issues.

Lord Storey: Further to this review, will action be taken to ensure that consent, which the Minister just mentioned, is taught consistently as part of relationship and sex education in schools, and to ensure that teachers are supported in accessing any additional training they may need to address this issue effectively for pupils—both boys and girls? Although I obviously welcome the outcome of the review and its recommendations for schools, this is also an issue for society as a whole. Will the Minister work with colleagues across government to ensure that the new violence against women and girls strategy can deliver the wider cultural changes that we so desperately need?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that work is going on across government. The strategy he outlined is obviously being led by the Home Office, and I had the pleasure of meeting the Minister leading on this, Victoria Atkins. As a result of her intervention, we have changed and updated the definition of child sexual exploitation in our guidance to make sure that we are working together on this. This is a journey for all of us in terms of how we deal with the prevalence of violence against women and girls. The domestic abuse legislation is landmark legislation in outlawing coercive control and hopefully getting better societal understanding of the nature of abuse.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the report. However, there is a lack of reference to stakeholders from black and minority ethnic communities, including Members of Parliament, who have expertise and may have been consulted.
The domestic violence legislation was a watershed moment for Parliament, as was the Government’s leadership in their determination to root out violence  against women and families. Throughout, we heard repeatedly how endemic violence and abuse are in our homes, and that they have permeated our societal structures and norms. We cannot put aside the role of schools and colleges—and, indeed, some police officers —in not investigating matters as they should.
As a former children’s social worker, it pains me to ask why we are aghast, given our years of such debates in this House—as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, cited—and the work of charities to highlight the many aspects of adult violence, which inevitably results in children experiencing and witnessing much violence and abuse. Many of those children subsequently also undertake bullying, sexual harassment, abuse and online threats in schools, colleges and universities.
I have not read the whole report at the moment, but I acknowledge that the pressures on resources are significant. How do the Minister and the rest of the Government intend to collaborate with local authorities and national women’s and children’s rights organisations to consider the recommendations of the report to prevent further immediate harm to children?
In the meantime, will schools and colleges provide access to counselling and have anonymous structures for receiving reports? Of course, I note what the Minister says about safeguarding being everybody’s business. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that children and parents are made aware that they will be believed and, as the report says, to prevent children seeing sexual abuse and harms as being so common that they see no point in reporting them?

Baroness Berridge: The noble Baroness is correct that young people need to know that, when they come forward, they will be listened to and taken seriously. As soon as staff in our schools are aware of any of these issues, they know of the guidance and should be able to act on that. The noble Baroness is also correct that of course we also need to make sure that there is help for the boys—it is mainly boys—who are involved. Obviously, our main tool there is the RSHE curriculum, but I am of course aware that schools involve other charitable institutions to try to support them when they have a young person who needs some specialist help to unpick their attitudes towards girls. That is embedded as well in part of the behaviour policy; it is a safeguarding and behaviour issue in a school.
If the harm that the noble Baroness outlines is taking place at home and is domestic abuse, schools are actually the second largest referrers to children’s social care. Those issues should be going to children’s social care through referrals from the schools’ designated safeguarding lead. The noble Baroness is correct that we need to make sure that local authorities are working on this, which is why Ofsted has a specific recommendation that the local safeguarding partnerships should reach out to engage with schools. If schools need to provide counselling, resources are available through school funding to provide any specialist support that they believe is necessary.
House adjourned at 7.41 pm.